BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords] (By Order)
	 — 
	Transport for London (Supplemental Toll Provisions) Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Second Readings opposed and deferred until Tuesday 8 November (Standing Order No. 20)

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Eurozone

Julian Lewis: What assessment he has made of the potential effects on UK interests of the creation of an economic government of the Eurozone.

George Osborne: We have had positive gross domestic product numbers this morning, but the biggest single boost to the British economy this autumn would be a lasting resolution of the euro crisis. Such a resolution requires, among many other things, greater fiscal integration within the eurozone as it follows the remorseless logic of monetary union. We have made it clear that Britain will not be part of that fiscal integration, and that issues affecting Britain, such as the single market and financial services regulation, must continue to be decided at EU level.

Julian Lewis: If the Liberal Democrats had had their way, we would have joined the euro with disastrous consequences. Now, the liberal Conservatives are advising us to support fiscal union in the eurozone, which will lead to economic union and a single government. How does my right hon. Friend really feel about a policy undermining the system of democratic states in Europe that gave the continent peace for more than half a century?

George Osborne: Those who were against Britain joining the euro, including my hon. Friend and me, were against it partly because we felt that it would lead to greater fiscal integration. That was one of the arguments for
	keeping Britain out. There is a remorseless logic driving monetary union towards greater fiscal integration, but it is in Britain’s overwhelming economic national interest to have stability in the eurozone, so I think that that fiscal integration is part of what is required. Of course, we have to ensure that Britain’s interests are protected, that we are not part of that fiscal integration, and that issues such as the single market and financial regulation are conducted at the level of the 27.

Wayne David: The Chancellor talks a great deal about fiscal integration in the eurozone, but will he tell us precisely what he means by fiscal integration?

George Osborne: We shall see the 17 members of the euro attempting to co-ordinate their budget policies better, and more mutual surveillance, with sanctions, for those who do not do what has been agreed. I have to say that the confusion, if there is any, is in Labour’s policy, because it is now holding open the prospect of membership of the euro, which would be the ultimate fiscal and monetary integration.

Andrew Tyrie: Does the Chancellor agree that it is wholly unacceptable that the rest of Europe should be held to ransom by Greece? What would be the consequences for the UK and the eurozone of a no vote in a Greek referendum?

George Osborne: There is no doubt that the decision by the Greek Prime Minister has added to the instability and uncertainty in the eurozone. We can see that today. We are trying to create stability and certainty in the eurozone. Ultimately, it is up to the Greek people and the Greek political system to decide how they make their decisions, but I believe that it is extremely important for the eurozone to implement the package that it agreed last week. I said at the time that that was crucial, as did everyone else involved. We need to get on with it, sooner rather than later.

Kevin Brennan: Is not the truth that the Chancellor cannot urge any real action in the eurozone because he is stuck with a failed plan that has resulted in our economy bumping along the bottom? It will take more than him wearing a high-visibility jacket on the rolling news to put that right.

George Osborne: As I was saying, this morning we had the news that our GDP is growing by 0.5%—[Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] Well, GDP fell by about 6% when Labour was in office and when the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) was advising the last Prime Minister. If we look at growth in France or Germany, the most recent figures show that it was either negative or growing at about 0.1%. The instability in the eurozone and the uncertainty in the world are having an effect on all western economies at the moment, and we have to sort that out, but that is not an excuse for Britain not to deal with its problems, which were created by that lot sitting over there.

John Redwood: Will my right hon. Friend ensure, if he is not using our veto against more fiscal integration, that Britain gets something out
	of the deal? Do we not need the right to opt out of any past or future EU measure that could damage jobs and prosperity at home?

George Osborne: We have already extracted a price for the European Stability Mechanism treaty that the eurozone wants to put forward by getting ourselves out of the EU bail-out mechanism to which the last Government had committed us. We are working to keep the increase in the EU budget to a real freeze. In other words, we have, I think, proved in office that we can extract important concessions and in the case of the EU bail-out fund we have actually taken a power back to Britain. That will be the approach we take to future discussions and negotiations—putting Britain’s national interest first.

Christopher Leslie: Why did the Chancellor’s statement last Thursday about economic governance in the eurozone fail to mention the most important missing ingredient—a strategy for jobs and growth? Was it an accident or was it deliberate? He has been telling us all summer that Britain is a safe haven, yet growth is weak, unemployment is rising and construction and manufacturing are both contracting. What kind of safe haven is that?

George Osborne: First, may I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on keeping his job in the clear-out of the Labour Treasury Front-Bench team—although on the basis of that question, I am not sure why he did? The whole purpose of our negotiations in Europe and the whole purpose of what we are doing at home is to stabilise the British economy and set it on a path of growth and jobs. We inherited a situation where unemployment had rocketed under the Labour Government and we had the deepest recession of any country in the world, apart from Japan. We are rescuing that situation, and it is reflected in the very low interest rates paid in this country in comparison with all those other countries.

Long-term Unemployment

Chris Williamson: What assessment he has made of the effects of the 2011 Budget on long-term unemployment.

Kevin Barron: What assessment he has made of the effects on unemployment of the outcome of the comprehensive spending review.

Danny Alexander: The independent Office for Budget Responsibility published its forecast for unemployment in March. Unemployment is a serious problem for the UK, with about 1 million people continuously on out-of-work benefits for more than a decade. This Government have introduced a number of reforms to the welfare system, including the Work programme—the biggest single payment-by-results employment programme this country has ever seen, which is expected to help 2.4 million claimants over the next seven years.

Chris Williamson: The Chief Secretary should stop being so complacent about long-term unemployment. The truth is that this Government are spending more to keep people on the dole and they are losing income
	from tax revenues that would otherwise be paid on income tax and VAT. Is it not time that the Government adopted a plan for jobs and growth to get the economy moving again? The right hon. Gentleman could do worse than adopt Labour’s five-point plan for economic growth and avoid the spectre of stagflation for years to come.

Danny Alexander: I am not sure that Labour’s five-point plan would help the British economy, given that it involves spending an extra £20-odd billion, putting at risk the fiscal credibility that is so important to maintaining employment in this country. Nor do I think the hon. Gentleman should be so critical of the Work programme, which after all is designed to tackle the legacy of 1 million people who have been out of work for more than 10 years—a legacy for which his party is responsible.

Kevin Barron: Is it not true that the increase in unemployment caused by the comprehensive spending review is a heavy burden both for the individuals and the families concerned and for the economy? What does the Minister say to the fact that the Government have had to borrow £46 billion more this year than they were planning to borrow?

Danny Alexander: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that unemployment is a heavy burden for any individual or any family. We inherited from Labour the largest budget deficit this country has ever seen. It was incumbent on this coalition Government when we came into office to take the action necessary, otherwise we would have found ourselves in a position that many other European countries face, which would have been a great deal worse for the very people the right hon. Gentleman claims to be concerned about.

Karen Bradley: One of the key weapons in tackling youth unemployment is the use of apprenticeships, so will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the news that in Staffordshire Moorlands the number of apprentices has gone up from 480 in 2009-10 to 760 last year—an increase of 60%?

Danny Alexander: I certainly join the hon. Lady in welcoming that. It will provide significant new opportunities for young people in her constituency. Of course it is part of the increase of 250,000 apprenticeships that this Government have put in place.

Simon Hughes: After this morning’s encouraging news, does my right hon. Friend accept that one way of maximising employment is to give people the right to have flexible employment if that is what they wish? Given that the coalition agreement pledged to give people the right to request flexible employment, can he report on progress in implementing that commitment?

Danny Alexander: My right hon. Friend is correct, and it is a great shame that Labour Members sneer at the economic growth that has been reported today. As my right hon. Friend says, flexible employment is an important part of that growth. We set out plans in our coalition agreement, and we have announced proposals to implement them by the end of the current Parliament.

Rachel Reeves: I must say that I find the Chief Secretary’s answers incredibly complacent. Given that unemployment is at a 17-year high and long-term youth unemployment has risen by more than 60% since the start of the year, we all know what impact the Chancellor’s policies have had on unemployment. Instead of being complacent, will the Government support calls for them to repeat the bankers’ bonus tax in order to create 100,000 extra youth jobs and to introduce a national insurance holiday for small businesses taking on new workers? That is what Labour has proposed in its five-point plan. We need policies that will get the economy moving again and reduce unemployment, thus reducing the deficit. When will the Government act?

Danny Alexander: The hon. Lady’s position would have more credibility if she recognised the fact that youth unemployment rose during Labour’s time in office, as did long-term unemployment. As for her proposal for a bonus tax, that was written off by the last Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that it could not work. She should listen to her own colleagues first.

Tax avoidance and evasion

Stuart Andrew: What steps he is taking to reduce tax avoidance and evasion.

George Osborne: We have made it clear that tax evasion is both illegal and immoral, and that this Government will not tolerate it. We are increasing the number of staff at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs who are dedicated to tackling tax evasion and tax avoidance to 2,500. We also aim to increase the amount of tax collected by £7 billion, and, unlike the last Government, we have concluded a treaty with Switzerland to get back the money that individuals should have paid here in the United Kingdom.

Stuart Andrew: I have been contacted by a fair number of constituents who have expressed concern about tax avoidance. I welcome many of the measures that the Government have introduced to tackle this unfairness. Is the scope of the recent tax avoidance agreement between our Government and the Swiss likely to include cases in which tax is not paid by individuals who are tax-exiled in Switzerland, such as the widely reported case of Mr Andrew Rosenfeld?

Hon. Members: Give him a job!

George Osborne: Actually, you just have. You made him your general election strategist. However, I will not comment on the tax affairs of individuals, although I suspect that many will over the coming years.

David Miliband: The Chancellor will remember, in his first Budget, fixing a target for debt
	“to place our fiscal credibility beyond doubt”. —[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 167.]
	That target was for debt to be reduced by the end of the Parliament, but, according to figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility, it depends on economic growth of 2.8%. How far below 2.8% must growth fall for the Chancellor’s fiscal mandate and his fiscal credibility to be shot to pieces?

Mr Speaker: Order. The question refers to a reduction in tax avoidance and evasion.

George Osborne: Tackling tax evasion and avoidance—to which the question refers—will help us to reduce both the deficit and the debt. We have the fiscal mandate and the debt target. That has been independently verified by the Office for Budget Responsibility—which is in marked contrast to the situation when the right hon. Gentleman was in the Cabinet—and on 29 November it will provide its update.

Gary Streeter: Although we are all in favour of dealing with tax avoidance and evasion, are not some of the heavy-handed tactics used by HMRC to collect tax, including the imposition of late-payment penalties under the Labour Government, helping to stifle some growth in small and medium-sized businesses? Will the Chancellor examine the position to ensure that HMRC is being fair?

George Osborne: Of course we always want HMRC to approach things in a proportionate manner, and it certainly handles large companies and their tax bills better than it did several years ago. However, we must collect the tax that is owed. That is a very important principle at any time, and it is particularly important at a time when we are all having to make difficult decisions in our attempts to reduce the budget deficit. We will not tolerate tax evasion, and we do apply penalties to people who do not pay their tax on time.

Owen Smith: The Chancellor is talking a good game, and yesterday the Exchequer Secretary announced the establishment of an “affluent unit” to tackle tax avoidance. For the sake of clarity, I should add that that is not a pet name for the Tory Front Bench, but a department in HMRC. However, the £900 million is not new money. It is not additional, and nor are the 200 staff. Is not the reality that the Government are more interested in offering tax breaks to the wealthiest than in tackling tax avoidance?

George Osborne: This is the Government who have introduced additional charges for long-staying non-doms; Labour had 13 years in which to do that, but they did not. This is the Government who have concluded a tax treaty with Switzerland; the previous Government had an opportunity to do that—[Interruption.]Well, this is what a Europe Minister in the last Government said:
	“Swiss…deal offered to HMG…more than decade ago but GB turned it down thus losing billions in revenue”.
	They had 13 years to deal with tax avoidance and evasion. We are dealing with it now, while they must account for their new general election strategist.

Unemployment (Women)

Fiona Mactaggart: What assessment he has made of the effects of the 2011 Budget on unemployment amongst women.

Chloe Smith: The Office for Budget Responsibility published its unemployment forecasts in March 2011, taking full account of announcements at Budget 2011, but it does not publish forecasts by gender. The Government are
	committed to tackling unemployment and helping support women into work. The hon. Lady will be aware that female employment has remained broadly steady since the start of 2008. Employment among women aged 25 to 64 is up more than 100,000 since the start of 2008, and has risen by 15,000 in the last three months.

Fiona Mactaggart: But with both women’s unemployment and the retail prices index at a higher level than at any time since the Chancellor left university—which was probably when the hon. Lady left primary school— [Interruption.] I do not—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. All this noise slows down progress. Let’s get on.

Fiona Mactaggart: I was welcoming a young woman to the Front Bench, and I am glad to see young people representing people in this Parliament, but I do think it is shocking that we currently have the highest level of unemployment in more than 20 years—

Mr Speaker: Order. I just say to the hon. Lady that what I want is a question with a question mark.

Fiona Mactaggart: Is it not time that this Government delivered for women on employment, and may I suggest that support for women entrepreneurs and delivering promises that they made before the election for 3,000 more midwives and 4,000 extra—

Mr Speaker: Order. We have got the point.

Chloe Smith: I have a number of things to say to the hon. Lady, none of which would include any personal questions, of course.
	I can assure the hon. Lady that the Government are reducing the deficit fairly, and I would point out in particular that we are taking 1.1 million of the lowest-paid workers out of tax entirely, and the majority of them are women. She will welcome that as much as I do. Furthermore, she should know that unemployment rose to its level of 30% under her party’s Government.[Official Report, 3 November 2011, Vol. 534, c. 6MC.]

Claire Perry: Does my hon. Friend also agree that one of the most important steps this Government have taken is to exempt from the pay freeze the lowest-paid workers in the public sector, 80% of whom are women?

Chloe Smith: I certainly do welcome that, and it is important to combine that with taking women out of income tax, as I have already mentioned.

Cathy Jamieson: May I genuinely welcome the hon. Lady to her new post? I have no doubt that we will have many exchanges across the Chamber, and I hope we will focus on policy.
	Back in May, the Minister claimed that the Government’s approach to the economy was working because there were 14 fewer unemployed claimants in her constituency. What is she saying now that women’s unemployment in the UK has risen to its highest rate since 1988, and, more importantly, what is she going to do about it?

Chloe Smith: I will tell the hon. Lady what I am certainly going to do about it, which is join the rest of this Government in working on welfare reform, tax reform, child care reform and many other measures that will take women’s unemployment down from its record level, where her Government left it.

Structural Deficit

Damian Hinds: What recent estimate he has made of the size of the structural deficit.

George Osborne: The estimate is that the structural deficit for this year will be 5.3% of GDP, which is down from the record 8.9% in the last year of the previous Government, with it having been the highest in the G7 before the crisis. Of course, these estimates are now provided independently by the Office for Budget Responsibility, rather than being fiddled by the close advisers of the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, as used to happen.

Damian Hinds: Other countries face fierce criticism for their tardiness in addressing not only their immediate deficit, but their growing medium and long-term liabilities. How is progress in that regard for the British Government?

George Osborne: We are bringing the deficit down from the record levels that we inherited, which has in part provided stability in the financial markets for sterling and our interest rates. That has been absolutely crucial, as we can see in the very high interest rates faced by not just Greece and Portugal, but now even by countries such as Italy and France, which face significantly higher interest rates than we do. That is of course a huge boost to the British economy.

Graeme Morrice: Does the Chancellor think that rising unemployment and growth of just 0.5% in 12 months will make it easier or harder to get the deficit down?

George Osborne: This morning’s GDP numbers are a positive step, but of course the British economy has a difficult road to travel from the very high debts—the record debts—that we inherited. That is made more difficult by the international situation, as people can plainly see today, but we are determined to make that journey to the growth and prosperity that this country was so lacking under the previous Government.

Social Impact Bonds

Mark Garnier: What recent discussions he has had on social impact bonds.

Danny Alexander: Important work is going on within both the social investment sector and government to develop and test social impact bond models, and we meet regularly with colleagues to discuss the progress that the Government are making in growing the social investment market, including through social impact bonds.

Mark Garnier: My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the exciting potential that social impact bonds have, not only in offering financial support for the third sector, but in securing genuine savings for the Government.
	Will he or one of his Ministers meet me and representatives from the Social Finance investment bank to explore ways in which the Treasury can help to maximise the potential of this nascent financial instrument?

Danny Alexander: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the enormous potential of this sector, and I congratulate him on his work and the close interest he has taken in this subject. The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury would be very happy to meet both him and representatives of the Social Finance investment bank.

Mr Speaker: I call Kelvin Hopkins.

Kelvin Hopkins: Next question.

Government Debt

Jesse Norman: What recent estimate he has made of the level of central Government debt.

Robert Buckland: What recent estimate he has made of the level of central Government debt.

David Gauke: The Office for National Statistics publishes central Government debt figures monthly. The latest figures released on 21 October gave central Government gross debt as £1.2 trillion or 77.6% of GDP in September. The Government use public sector net debt for their fiscal targets. That figure is also published by the ONS, and it was £966 billion or 62.6% of GDP last month.

Jesse Norman: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. This country continues to bear a huge burden of private finance initiative debt. The Government have made important progress in improving the cost and operation of PFI over the past 18 months. Does he share my view, and that of many of my colleagues, that more can be done to secure a fair deal on PFI, while securing investment in our infrastructure?

Mr Speaker: It would help if the Chair could actually hear the question being asked.

David Gauke: My hon. Friend has campaigned tirelessly on this matter. As he knows, the Government have improved the assurance and approval arrangements for PFI, and the transparency. We are seeking to obtain £1.5 billion of savings on existing stock of PFI contracts, and we will of course continue to work hard to improve the situation.

Robert Buckland: With gilt yields at their lowest for 60 years, does this situation not show that the international markets have huge faith in the UK’s debt reduction strategy?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and that point was confirmed yesterday by the OECD. We would be a very foolish Government indeed to throw away that credibility by pursuing a policy of spend and borrow as the Labour party advocates.

Kelvin Hopkins: In 1945, Britain had higher Government debt than now and the Government of that time did not impose cuts but ran a full-employment economy and there was rapid growth. Is it not time that the Government took a leaf out of Labour’s book in relation to running the economy?

David Gauke: May I just make the point about the 1945 Government that they were running surpluses from 1948 onwards? If memory serves, the debt in 1945 was 232% of GDP and by 1951 it was 178% of GDP, so they brought debt down. That is not a bad thing to do and this Government want to do it, whereas the Labour party wants to put debt up.

Sammy Wilson: Given the increase in debt caused by the lower growth rates and the impact that that is likely to have on the Government’s deficit reduction plan, what impact does the Minister believe that will have on the United Kingdom’s credit rating? Does he believe that steps need to be taken to inject growth into the economy?

David Gauke: It is worth pointing out what Standard & Poor said recently when it confirmed our triple A credit rating. It said that if we abandoned our fiscal plans—if we borrowed more—that credit rating would be at risk. The best way of keeping our triple A rating is by sticking to the plan.

Green Growth

Andrew George: What plans he has to bring forward fiscal measures to support green growth.

Chloe Smith: The Government are committed to supporting green growth, as is demonstrated by the green investment bank, which was allocated £3 billion in the spending review, by the carbon price floor, which is designed to drive investment in low-carbon power generation, and by the green deal, which supports households and businesses in increasing their energy efficiency at no up-front cost.

Andrew George: May I, too, extend a very warm welcome to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary?
	In the Budget, the Chancellor pledged to consider incentives to encourage take-up of the green deal. One idea is to have a stamp duty particularly for the least energy-efficient homes. How does my hon. Friend intend to advance those incentives and is she prepared to meet me and industry representatives to find a way forward with the Chancellor’s incentives?

Chloe Smith: May I take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend and others for their kind words regarding my role?
	As I have mentioned, the green deal is a key part of supporting such green growth and the Government are taking a range of actions to help people to gain control of their household energy bills. I certainly note my hon. Friend’s suggestion and I am happy to meet him to discuss options within public finance constraints.

Pat McFadden: May I also welcome the new Minister to her post? She will be aware of the importance to the UK economy of
	energy-intensive industries such as the steel, chemicals and ceramics industries. German competitors in such industries are benefiting from rebates worth more than €5 billion a year; will she consult the Chancellor and make sure that the pre-Budget report includes a special package of measures for those industries so that rising energy costs do not simply result in jobs being exported abroad?

Chloe Smith: I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is looking into exactly this and we shall be reporting back on it.

National Insurance Holiday

Rosie Cooper: How many firms have participated in the national insurance holiday for new businesses.

David Gauke: As of 25 October 2011, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs had received 8,761 successful applications for the national insurance contributions holiday. A breakdown of information by constituency on the amounts claimed and jobs supported for the first year of the scheme will be published shortly in a factsheet in the House of Commons Library.

Rosie Cooper: Could the Minister tell the House how much of the £1 billion allocated for the national insurance holiday has actually been given to businesses?

David Gauke: As I say, we will be updating the House with all those details shortly, but there are 1,600 or so businesses in the north-west region that are benefiting from it. I visited one of them not far from her constituency a few weeks ago which was very appreciative of the scheme. Where the scheme is available, I encourage hon. Members to highlight it to their constituents.

Julian Smith: May I urge the Minister to reconsider auto-enrolling new businesses on to the scheme, so that rather than their having to apply for it they are placed on it automatically?

David Gauke: We looked at auto-enrolment but one of the difficulties was the fact that it would have been years before we could have put it fully in place and we wanted to move quickly to have the scheme in operation. It is important that we highlight the scheme and make sure that publicity is available and that businesses are aware of it. The businesses that I have met that have taken up the scheme are very appreciative of it and it helps them in those difficult first few months.

Economic Growth

Nick Smith: What assessment he has made of the level of economic growth in (a) the UK and (b) other EU members states in the last 12 months.

Mark Hoban: Eurostat publishes GDP growth data on all EU member states. These data show the UK economy growing in the most recent three quarters. The IMF’s
	latest forecast shows the UK economy growing this year, and growing faster than the economies of France, Germany and Italy next year.

Nick Smith: The Times says today that the Government’s plans for growth are “piecemeal” and their implementation “patchy”. Given that long-term youth unemployment is up by 60%, do we not need a proper programme for jobs?

Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman will realise that the biggest increase in youth unemployment in recent years took place when his party was in government. This Government have put in place the long-term foundations to tackle unemployment and raise growth across the UK.

Charlie Elphicke: May I welcome today’s excellent economic growth figures, which are well ahead of forecasts at 0.5%? Our growth is just as high as US growth this year, without the massive fiscal stimulus. Is that not right?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It would have been better if the Labour party had welcomed today’s growth figures rather than talking our economy down.

Stephen Timms: When we embarked on the economic course that the Government have set, Ministers told us that because they were tackling the deficit aggressively, there would be a surge of private sector confidence—and, therefore, investment and jobs. Many people agreed with them. Now that we know that expectation was mistaken, surely there must be a change of course.

Mark Hoban: Every reputable international organisation that talks about what is happening in the UK economy now recognises that the Government need to stick to the course, rather than throwing away the valuable credibility that we have gained as a consequence of tackling the mess left behind by the previous Government.

Andrea Leadsom: Does my hon. Friend agree that having our own currency is one of the keys to turning round our economy? Does he share my astonishment that the Labour party does not rule out joining the single currency?

Mark Hoban: It is remarkable, is it not, that when the Leader of the Opposition was asked whether a Labour Government would join the euro, his answer was:
	“It depends how long I’m prime minister for.”
	This Government have closed down the euro preparations that the Labour party set up, and that is why I think that we have taken the right decision to stay out of the euro and tackle our debt and deficit problems. That is why we have low interest rates, which help strengthen the recovery in this country.

Youth Unemployment

Linda Riordan: What fiscal measures he is implementing to address youth unemployment.

David Gauke: The 2011 Budget announced a £200 million package of support, including 100,000 work experience opportunities for young people, skills training, guaranteed interviews and progression into apprenticeships. This is in addition to the £7.6 billion that we are investing in education and training for 16 to 19-year-olds this year and the £1.4 billion that we are investing in apprenticeships. Young people will also benefit from priority access to the Work programme, which started in June.

Linda Riordan: What my constituents want is action rather than words, especially on youth unemployment, which stands at nearly 10% in Halifax. When will the Government take real measures to get young people into work and contributing to the economy and society in a positive way?

David Gauke: As I said in my answer, we are introducing more apprenticeships, and young people will have priority in the Work programme. The hon. Lady highlights youth unemployment in Halifax. The last estimate showed that it increased by 0.6% from June 2010 to March 2011—but I also have to point out that from 2004 to 2010, youth unemployment increased by 8.5% in Halifax.

Matthew Hancock: Does the Minister share my concern that even during the boom years youth unemployment rose? Will he join me in commending the work placement scheme in Haverhill in my constituency? The work programme and the new flexibility at the jobcentre means that young people can be put into work placements, and more than half of those put in placements end up getting a permanent job.

David Gauke: Clearly the news from Haverhill is very encouraging, and I am delighted to hear it. I agree with my hon. Friend’s comment; it is striking that youth unemployment started increasing in 2004, at a time when the economy appeared to be in good shape.

Economic Policy

John Howell: What recent representations he has received from the IMF and the OECD on UK economic policy.

Mark Hoban: The International Monetary Fund and the OECD regularly hold frank bilateral discussions with each member country. When Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the IMF, visited London in September, she stated:
	“In the United Kingdom strong fiscal consolidation is essential to restore debt sustainability, given the UK’s very high structural budget deficit and large financial sector relative to GDP.”
	Angel Gurria, secretary-general of the OECD, said yesterday of the UK:
	“You were successful. You cleared the markets. The package was credible…The markets never discuss the quality of the rating of the UK.”
	That is a consequence of the actions this Government have taken to tackle the mess left behind by the previous Government.

John Howell: I thank the Minister for that reply, but what advice has he been given on the consequences of our failing to pay our IMF subscription?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend asks a very good question. It is a sad indictment of the state of today’s Labour party that it voted against the increase in the IMF subscription negotiated by the—

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister has said enough, and he has said it about another party’s policy. We need to move on.

Geraint Davies: Is it not accepted now by the international community that the announcement by the Chancellor a year ago that he would cut half a million public sector jobs led directly to a reduction in consumer demand, and that it has reduced private sector investment and growth and led to an increase in deficit predictions?

Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the action that this Government have taken has earned the endorsement of the IMF and the OECD. That is why we have the low interest rates the economy needs. The Opposition talk about a plan B, but that would actually increase the budget deficit and the interest rates that this country would have to pay.

Job Creation (Private Sector)

Laura Sandys: What fiscal measures he is taking to encourage job creation in the private sector.

Chloe Smith: In Budget 2011 the Government put in place a wide range of measures to support job creation, including supporting business growth by aiming to create the most competitive tax system in the G20, and helping to ensure that it always pays to work, by increasing the personal allowance.

Laura Sandys: I would like to add my welcome to my hon. Friend at the Dispatch Box.
	Having run two small businesses, I understand the pressures that small businesses in South Thanet face. How much less will we tax small businesses in the coming years as a result of our tax cuts and the national insurance freeze?

Chloe Smith: My understanding is that, compared with the plans of the previous Government, businesses will pay £3 billion less in employer national insurance contributions and more than £1 billion less in corporation tax, as a result of changes announced in Budget 2010.

Alison McGovern: Small businesses have been frequent attenders at my regular Friday surgeries, and they tell me that business is hard. Now that the hon. Lady’s party’s Chancellor has presided over the slowest economic recovery since the first world war, will she explain to small businesses in Wirral how they are supposed to get out of this mess?

Chloe Smith: This has been one of the deepest recessions on record, and it is no wonder that times are very hard for people. The hon. Lady must take note of the fact that overall, more than two jobs have been created in the private sector for every one lost in the public sector, which is very clear progress on what her Government left behind.

Lorely Burt: I know that VAT is a somewhat sensitive subject in this place, but has the Minister made an analysis of the costs and benefits and the jobs that would be created by reducing VAT on building refurbishment materials?

Christopher Leslie: A very good question!

Chloe Smith: It is indeed a very good question. I am, sadly, aware that many costs are associated with such a policy, but I would be very happy to discuss such things with the hon. Lady.

Regional Growth Fund

Tom Blenkinsop: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on funding for the regional growth fund.

Danny Alexander: I regularly discuss the regional growth fund with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. Yesterday we announced the outcome of round two of the fund. In total we expect the regional growth fund to support more than 325,000 jobs in the private sector over the next three years.

Tom Blenkinsop: Teesside has not yet received any of its promised RGF funding. The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) says that is down to due diligence, which takes an average of between four and six weeks. No one doubts the need for due diligence, but how much is the Chancellor charging businesses that receive RGF funding for seven months of due diligence limbo?

Danny Alexander: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that well over half the projects that were given funding in round 1 are under way, mostly with the private sector funding to start with; the public sector funding will come in later. But I should have thought he would want to welcome the fact that two specific round 2 bids were successful in Middlesbrough in the round that we announced yesterday.

Interest Rates

Oliver Colvile: What recent assessment he has made of the potential effect on household spending of an increase in interest rates.

Chloe Smith: The Bank of England is responsible for monetary policy, as my hon. Friend knows, and setting the bank
	rate to meet its inflation target. Action by this Government in the comprehensive spending review and the Budget put the public finances on a sustainable footing and has supported low and stable interest rates. The higher interest rates seen in other countries highlight the risks when financial markets lose confidence in a Government.

Oliver Colvile: Home owners clearly benefit from having low interest rates, but inflation damages savers and consumers. Will my hon. Friend explain how the Government’s inflation target is set, and the criteria used to review it?

Chloe Smith: I shall, by reference to correspondence, that my hon. Friend will be well able to delve into, between the Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England, but I note at this point that the Government believe that low and stable medium-term inflation is a prerequisite for economic growth, and that is what drives our policy.

Topical Questions

Tony Lloyd: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

George Osborne: The core purpose of the Treasury is to ensure the stability of the economy, promote growth and employment, reform banking and manage the public finances so that Britain lives within her means.

Tony Lloyd: Will one of the Treasury Ministers confirm that public sector workers who work part-time earning less than £15,000 will still pay the 3% income tax? Is this fair, and should not the Government negotiate in good faith, and not simply try to ram this through?

George Osborne: The Chief Secretary will shortly set out the full details of our pension offer to the public sector. When people see it, they will see that it is fair to the public sector—people in the public sector will get a much more generous pension than is available in almost any part of the private sector—but it is also fair to the taxpayers. It is, of course, based on the work of John Hutton, a former Labour Pensions Secretary.

Jake Berry: Labour-controlled Blackburn with Darwen council has abandoned pensioners and schoolchildren in my constituency because of a £10,000 bus cut, but it can still find £94,500 to fund trade union officials. Does my right hon. Friend think it is right that the taxpayer picks up the tab for trade union officials?

George Osborne: In central Government we have announced that we are reducing the facility time, as it is called, in the civil service because we do not think it is fair that taxpayers should be paying for so many full-time trade union officials. Obviously, it is up to Blackburn with Darwen council to decide how it spends its council tax payers’ money, but from what my hon. Friend is telling me, it does not look as if the council is spending it particularly well.

Edward Balls: Today’s figures have shown that the British economy has grown over the past 12 months, since the Chancellor’s spending review, by just 0.5%, and Treasury officials have apparently admitted to the BBC this afternoon that the economy is now set to worsen. The IMF says that if the British economy continues to undershoot, the Chancellor should change course to boost growth and jobs. How much longer does the country have to wait before the Chancellor will finally listen?

George Osborne: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman back from America. We missed him in our debates last week—even though, by some coincidence, the tone of the debate markedly improved. We have been keeping an eye on what he was saying while he was in America. This is what he told American television: “What the world needs are balanced plans on deficit reduction, and you can’t duck that.” In America he has to say that so that he is not laughed out of the TV studio. Here he not only ducks deficit reduction; he runs away from it. We are clearing up the mess that he left when he was running Britain’s economic policy for 13 years.

Edward Balls: I am afraid people watching this will think that was a deeply complacent answer. Today’s figures mean that the Chancellor’s figures for growth will be downgraded. They will undershoot the OECD and the IMF growth forecast as well. He tried to blame the eurozone, but the fact is that our recovery was choked off a year ago. Families watching this programme and struggling with their bills, businesses on the edge and young people losing their jobs will all think the Chancellor is completely out of touch. Why does he not understand that if we are to get the deficit down, the country needs a plan for growth and jobs, and it needs it now? How much longer will we have to put up with this prevarication before it is too late, and the Chancellor finally acts?

George Osborne: The GDP numbers showed this morning that the British economy is growing, and that is positive news. But of course we have a difficult journey to take, from the deepest recession of our lifetimes and the biggest banking crisis in British history, which the right hon. Gentleman presided over when the Labour party was in government—and it is made more difficult by what is happening elsewhere in the world. [Interruption.] Of course that is the case, which is why the growth figures in the British economy are similar to the growth figures in the American economy, or the French economy, or the German economy.

Edward Balls: indicated  dissent .

George Osborne: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but in 2011 the British economy has grown at exactly the same rate as the United States economy. It has taken a completely different course from the one that he suggested as shadow Chancellor and yet it has the same growth, which shows that what we are doing is bringing stability to the British economy. Frankly, for him to get up every week and say that we need a deficit reduction plan, but not to give us any details, shows how hopelessly out of touch he is.

Julian Lewis: If the Greeks can have a referendum on Europe, why can’t we?

George Osborne: What the Greek Prime Minister has apparently offered the Greek people is a referendum on difficult decisions required to get the budget deficit down. That is what he is talking about. We talked about these things in advance of a general election. Two parties here talked about those difficult decisions. We got elected, we are in government and we are now doing it, and we are recovering from the deep mess that the Labour party left us in.

David Crausby: Will the Chancellor intervene to prevent directors’ pay from increasing by another 49% this year? Or if he is not willing to intervene, will he at least explain to those suffering cuts in pay and the loss of their jobs, just how we are all in this together?

George Osborne: I have made it very clear, and the Prime Minister has made it very clear, that at all levels of society people have to be mindful of the current economic situation, and that includes highly paid directors and people working for the financial services. Bonuses are significantly lower than they were under the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported, and we are also introducing measures to encourage transparency in pay, and to give shareholders greater control over executive pay as well.

Douglas Carswell: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the TaxPayers Alliance’s excellent report published last week on abolishing national insurance and merging national insurance with income tax? Does he believe that the merger of national insurance and income tax would be a good way to simplify tax in the way that he promised, and will he make it happen?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government are looking into merging the operation of national insurance contributions and income tax. We are actively looking at ways in which we can make the tax system more transparent and simpler to understand, and we will be saying more on that subject shortly.

Luciana Berger: What does the Chancellor say to the Federation of Small Businesses, which describes his policies as too timid, and out of touch with the sluggishness of the UK’s economy?

George Osborne: The FSB, like many other business organisations, has supported what we have done to try to get the deficit down—and of course it also welcomes the fact that not only did we reverse the increase that the Labour Government planned in the small companies rate, but we have also been able to reduce the small companies rate and freeze business rates for another year.

Stephen Lloyd: Does the Minister agree that new plans for the Government to lend directly to small businesses and start-ups through credit easing will be beneficial to the economy and will create more jobs? Will the Minister also give me examples of how that will be put into practice?

Danny Alexander: I do agree with my hon. Friend. We will set out more details of our credit easing plan in the autumn statement later this month, but it is a mark of the Government that we are prepared to think differently and intelligently about how we can use such mechanisms precisely to get small businesses going in this country.

Andrew Gwynne: Youth unemployment now stands at a shocking 34% in Tameside and 23% in Stockport. Is not the right thing to do to listen to Labour’s five-point jobs plan, get the bank bonus tax reinstated and invest in 100,000 jobs for young people?

George Osborne: In his pitch for a job, the hon. Gentleman failed to mention that youth unemployment rose by more than 40% under the Labour Government. There is complete amnesia about the fact that 16 months ago they left this country with high unemployment, a high budget deficit, the deepest recession this country has seen in the last 100 years, and the biggest banking crisis in our history.

Alun Cairns: Some of the most needy children in the Vale of Glamorgan and across the UK will benefit from today onwards from the Government’s junior ISA. That presents an opportunity to return to a culture of savings among families. What plans have the Government to develop that further?

George Osborne: We have indeed announced today the launch of the junior ISA, which will enable many millions of parents to save for their children up to £3,600 a year tax free. Is should help more than 6 million children who will be eligible for it immediately and many more as they are born and grow up. It is all about trying to foster a savings culture after the age of irresponsibility and the culture of debt that we saw over the past decade.

Stephen Pound: I can assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I am not looking for a job—unlike many of my constituents. He talked earlier about fiscal integration. Does he agree that the possibility of a differential rate of corporation tax within the United Kingdom contains severe dangers?

George Osborne: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, we are consulting on the possibility of introducing a different corporation tax rate in Northern Ireland, reflecting the fact that the Irish Republic has a much lower corporation tax rate. The consultation is ongoing, and we are of course in discussions with the Northern Ireland Executive. We are clear that Northern Ireland would have to bear the cost of that in forgone revenues, and an important part of the discussions will be working out what exactly those forgone revenues would be.

Jo Swinson: I am concerned by reports that the Government are considering breaking with the 20-year convention of uprating pensions and benefits by the September inflation figure, now that the CPI has come in at 5.2%. Does the Chancellor recognise that it would be unfair to change the rules of the game suddenly, hurting vulnerable pensioners and disabled people in the process?

George Osborne: We are absolutely committed to the triple lock that we introduced on pensions so that they rise by CPI, earnings or 2.5%, whichever is greater. That is one of the really significant achievements of this Government, which two parties came together to create, and I think that it is something we can be very proud of.

David Winnick: May I tell the Chancellor that what is happening in the economy reminds me very much of the havoc and destruction caused by the Thatcher Government in the 1980s, with mass unemployment and poverty? Is it not perfectly understandable why many people are protesting against the sheer injustice, including those who are protesting, and rightly so, outside St Paul’s?

George Osborne: Again, there is absolutely no recognition that the Government the hon. Gentleman supported presided over the second deepest recession in the entire world. What is the Opposition’s explanation for that? Why was Britain so badly affected? Why was the British economy so unbalanced? Why had the gap between the rich and the poor grown? Why had manufacturing halved as a share of GDP? They have absolutely no answers on Labour’s record in office.

Mark Menzies: Will the Chancellor, or the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, expand on the advantages that the Warton local enterprise zone in my constituency will bring to businesses, particularly from tax breaks and improved planning rules?

George Osborne: I am very pleased that we were able to announce that additional enterprise zone for my hon. Friend’s constituents, which reflects the fact that the cut in the US defence budget had an impact on BAE Systems. I am glad that we were able to move quickly to create an enterprise zone, not only in the north-west but in east Yorkshire, to take into account the impact of that decision.

Andrew Love: If the Government’s overriding priority is to eliminate the deficit by the end of this Parliament, why is the Chancellor having to borrow an additional £46 billion during that period?

George Osborne: We inherited the highest—[ Interruption. ] The Opposition do not want to hear this. We inherited the highest budget deficit in Britain’s peacetime history. That budget deficit is now coming down, and that has contributed to financial stability in this country, in marked contrast with what we see on our television screens around Europe.

William Cash: Will my right hon. Friend pass on the message to the Deputy Prime Minister, with his accusations that Conservatives who advocate repatriation and renegotiation are committing economic suicide, that we are facing not only a disastrous two-tier Europe, but now also a two-tier Government?

George Osborne: Of course I do not agree with my hon. Friend on this occasion. The coalition Government have been able to get Britain out of the European Union bail-out that we found ourselves in when we came to office. We have been able to keep the budget increases
	down—again, in marked contrast with what we found on coming into office. We must now have some serious negotiations to make sure that Britain’s interests are protected in Europe, as the remorseless logic of monetary union—I am sure that he accepts this—leads to greater fiscal integration among eurozone countries. That is the reality of the situation facing us, and I think Britain under this Government will be able to negotiate well in our national interest.

Stephen McCabe: If the Chancellor cannot bring himself to extend the national insurance holiday to small and micro-businesses because the shadow Chancellor suggested it, will that be easier now that the CBI is also recommending it?

George Osborne: The CBI has been absolutely staunch in its defence of our deficit reduction plan, and says that it is crucial for business confidence. If the shadow Chancellor wants to make proposals to increase spending and borrowing, which he is perfectly entitled to do, why does he not also make proposals to cut Government spending and to get the budget deficit down? He talks about providing a medium-term deficit reduction plan, but we have not heard one single line item of it.

Stephen Williams: Whatever one thinks of the tactics of those who are camping outside St Paul’s and in the middle of my constituency, one issue that they are raising that resonates with the British public is the feeling that people are not paying their fair share of tax. Will my right hon. Friend update us on what progress we are making across the House, particularly on lifetime loans—disguised remuneration?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend raises a good point. At a time like this, people want to make sure that everyone pays their fair share of tax. We have taken action on the situation in Switzerland and on long-stay non-doms, but he raises a third point about disguised remuneration. That is a way in which people, often in financial services, get away with a much lower rate of tax. Guess who in the House voted against that action? The Labour party.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. As usual, this event is heavily oversubscribed. I am sorry to disappoint colleagues, but we must now move on.

Gangs and Youth Violence

Theresa May: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the cross-Government report into ending gang and youth violence. Following the shocking scenes of disorder over the summer, the Prime Minister asked me to lead a review, alongside my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, of gangs and youth violence. Today’s report is not the end of that process. It is merely the start of a comprehensive, long-term programme of work to tackle the violence that blights too many of our towns and cities.
	We have visited front-line projects; we have analysed youth violence and street gangs; we have met local authority chief executives, senior police officers, voluntary organisations and former gang members; and we have hosted an international conference of experts. Using this research, we have identified what can be done by Government and other agencies to stop the violence and to turn around the lives of those involved. Today’s report is an important first analysis of the problem, and of the interventions that work. It provides a platform for the intensive support we will provide to the most affected areas.
	If we are honest with ourselves, we need to accept that not enough was done over the years to deal with a problem we all knew existed and we knew was not being addressed. But the riots brought home to the whole country how serious a problem gang and youth violence has become. The statistics show that one in five of those arrested in connection with the riots in London were known gang members. Similar figures were recorded by West Yorkshire police, and Nottinghamshire had only a slightly lower proportion. Most other police forces identified fewer than 10% of all those arrested as known gang members, so gangs were not the sole cause of the riots, but they were a factor. The fact that so many young people who are not involved in gangs were still willing to carry out such serious acts of criminality merely reinforces the urgent need for action.
	Gang members and young people engaged in violence do not appear out of the blue. Analysis of their life stories shows certain common factors: parental neglect early in life, often linked to drug addiction or alcohol abuse and violence in the home; a history of poor discipline at school, truancy and exclusion; early brushes with the law for more minor offences; and exposure to older gang members, often based around their local estate. Those factors come up time and again, and during the review we heard powerful real-life examples. Our analysis also showed that gang membership itself can be an important driver of criminality and violence. In London, for example, almost 50% of shootings and 22% of serious violence are committed by known gang members.
	Our considered and evidence-based approach is designed to deal with each and every aspect of gang culture and youth violence. It will be based on five areas: prevention, pathways out, punishment, partnership working and providing support.
	Preventing young people from becoming involved in gangs and youth violence means starting at the beginning. Research shows that early intervention is the most
	cost-effective way of reducing violence later in life, so we are recruiting 4,200 extra health visitors and doubling the capacity of family nurse partnership schemes, to help 13,000 young mothers. We are providing £18 million to identify and support domestic violence victims and their children, who are at particular risk of turning to violence in adulthood.
	In schools, the pathway for young people into crime is all too clear: from low-level absence, to persistent absence and truancy, to low literacy and poor attainment. That is why our education reforms are focused on: early intervention in the foundation years; taking a rigorous approach to eliminating illiteracy; improving behaviour and discipline; and ensuring that every young person is taught in a way that inspires them and prepares them for the world of work.
	If prevention fails and young people are drawn into gangs and youth violence, we need to ensure that we provide viable pathways out. Moments of crisis in a young person’s life, such as arrest, exclusion from school or attending an accident and emergency department offer vital opportunities to intervene, so we will work with A and E departments and children’s social care providers to help young people who may be affected by gang violence.
	For those who are arrested, we will expand schemes to help young offenders with mental health and substance misuse problems, and we will look to provide ways out of gangs for those who have been convicted and served their time. We will therefore improve education provision in young offenders institutions and ensure that all young people who leave prison and claim jobseeker’s allowance are referred immediately to the Work programme.
	We will also establish a new ending gangs and youth violence team of community activists, NHS experts and police officers. It will offer intensive support to gang-affected areas to help them understand their problem and develop their own solutions, which could include rolling out schemes to re-house gang members who want to exit the gang lifestyle and mediation schemes to prevent retaliatory violence.
	Our review found some excellent police work to identify and manage the highest-risk gang members through a combination of targeted surveillance, enforcement and arrest for any offence, however minor, and positive offers of training, employment and drugs treatment for those who want a different life. However, those not prepared to break away from violence will face harsher and tougher punishments. That is why we will consult on making a new offence of possession of an illegal firearm with intent to supply, and on whether the penalty for illegal firearm importation should be increased. We are also consulting on whether the police need additional curfew powers. It is why we are extending the new gang injunctions to 14 to 17-year-olds, for example, to stop gang members entering rival territory, prevent them from being in public with dangerous dogs and require them to undertake positive activities; and it is why we are strengthening our laws on weapons possession so that anyone, including offenders aged 16 or 17, convicted of using a knife to threaten and endanger others will now face a mandatory custodial sentence. Any adult who commits a second very serious violent or sexual crime will now face a mandatory life sentence.
	This is not, however, solely a police and criminal justice programme. All the agencies that young people deal with, from teachers to health service workers and social services, need to develop better systems for identifying high-risk individuals, sharing information and working together. Simply throwing more money at the problem is not the answer. We need a more intelligent approach.
	We know, for example, that there are families on whom multiple Government agencies spend hundreds of thousands of pounds each year, yet their problems persist. That is why Louise Casey is today starting her work as the head of a new troubled families team to drive forward our commitment to turn around the lives of 120,000 troubled families. We will also deliver our commitment that all hospital A and E departments should share anonymised data on violent assaults with the police and other agencies. Sharing information and taking a multi-agency approach might not sound very exciting, but they work.
	Finally, to support local areas, we will target Home Office funds on those places where the most serious gang and youth violence problems exist. We will therefore provide £10 million in funding next year to support up to 30 local areas and invest at least £1.2 million of new resources over the next three years to improve services for young victims of sexual violence in our major urban areas, with a new focus on the girls and young women caught up in gang-related rape and abuse.
	For too long, communities have lived in fear of gangs. Many young lives have been ruined; many young lives have been lost. The summer showed that it is time for society to take a stand. It is time for a long-term programme, with intervention at each stage of vulnerable people’s lives; it is time for a locally led approach, with agencies working together and sharing information; and it is time for tough enforcement to be backed up by work to address the root causes of gang and youth violence. That is what our programme will deliver and I commend this statement to the House.

Yvette Cooper: I thank the Home Secretary for early sight of her statement and the Government report.
	The Opposition agree with the Government’s aim of tackling gang culture. The Home Secretary is right to point to the devastating impact on the victims of gang violence and intimidation and to be concerned about the damage that gangs do to those who get sucked into them, sometimes even in the search for protection. The violence is horrifying; the long-term scars for young people and society are severe. She is right that gangs played a part in the riots, but also that they have played a part in problems such as knife crime that affect some of our major cities.
	The Home Secretary also recognises that the overwhelming majority of young people do not get involved in gangs. Indeed, youth crime fell over the course of the previous Parliament as fewer young people were drawn into criminal activity, but we want youth crime to fall further, not to go back up. That is why action on the pernicious effect of gang culture is so important.
	I therefore agree strongly with the Home Secretary that effective action requires prevention, early intervention, working in partnerships, tough action and crackdowns on persistent gang activity, and punishment. Effective
	action needs to involve the NHS, schools and councils as well as the police. We also need action on domestic violence and to consider the impact on women and girls. She should also consider increasing the focus on housing and on the victims of gangs.
	I welcome the Home Secretary’s work to build on Labour’s approach in government, including the family intervention projects and implementing the extension of gang injunctions to 14-year-olds, for which the previous Labour Government legislated before the last election.
	I agree with the Home Secretary that we need to go further. I, too, am impressed by some of the work that police and local councils are doing in some areas to target gang members by offering them a way out, but rightly getting tough on them if they will not take it, but I am deeply concerned that the reality of the Government’s policy does not live up to the rhetoric. For a start, there is still complete confusion about sentencing policies. Last week, the Home Office told the papers that there would be longer sentences for gang members; yesterday, the Home Secretary told them that there would not be. Her plans on powers are also confused. She will know that many police forces and councils find that ASBOs are one of the most useful tools in disrupting gang activity, yet her policy still is to abolish them and replace them with weaker injunctions, so she is making it harder and not easier for the police to crack down.
	We welcome the emphasis on early intervention in the report, but that sits badly with the 20% cuts to Sure Start and well over 20% cuts to the youth service. We welcome the learning of lessons from successful work in places such as Strathclyde, but here is the real problem: the work in Strathclyde alone required an additional £5 million, but she has announced only £10 million for the country as a whole, and the Home Office has already said that that funding is not new. At the same time, she is halving the local community safety budgets, which councils and the police use for gang prevention work right now—£44 million of cuts over the next two years alone, on top of the cuts to community safety funding in the emergency Budget.
	Before the election, Haringey, where the riots started, received £2.2 million for community safety, including the action it was taking, with the police, to target gangs. By next year, that figure will be £200,000—a 90% cut in one borough alone. In Liverpool, the youth offending service, which works with gangs and young offenders, is facing more than £2 million of cuts—an overall reduction in its budget of 34%. All that comes on top of 16,000 police officer cuts, nearly 6,000 of which are in the forces that face the biggest problems with gangs.
	The Government are cutting too far, too fast, hitting not only the criminal justice system, but our economy, which risks costing us more. Higher unemployment and higher crime will cost us more. Ministers are right to be concerned about gangs and youth crime and to want action, but what does this really add up to on the streets of Lambeth or Liverpool or for the young people of Birmingham or Brent? Given that the Government are pushing up youth unemployment to nearly 1 million, cutting 16,000 police officers, ending ASBOs, slashing youth services and cutting crime prevention, can the Home Secretary put her hand on her heart and tell the House that during this Parliament the youth crime rate will fall, as it did in previous Parliaments?
	We agree with much of what the Home Secretary said today, but when we look at the reality behind the rhetoric—the reality behind her words—we see the truth, which is that the Government are still making it harder, not easier, for the police and communities to tackle gang violence and cut crime.

Theresa May: We have heard a typical response from the right hon. Lady. I shall start with the statements where she agreed with what we were doing, with the need to do more to draw young people out of gangs and reduce youth violence and with the point that this is not just about the police, but about how the NHS, schools and a variety of other agencies need to be involved. As I said in my statement, that is the basis of this first truly cross-Government report. She mentioned good projects by the police. There are a number of very good projects out there in parts of the Metropolitan police, Greater Manchester, the west midlands, Merseyside and, of course, Strathclyde. Those projects are already starting to make a difference.
	Sadly, however, having said that she agreed with a lot of what I said, the right hon. Lady then, as she did in August when we were talking about the riots, chose to be party political. I am sorry that she chose to do that, but I shall address her various points. She said that we should not scrap ASBOs, but what good have ASBOs done, given that, as she said, gang culture has been getting worse? We are getting rid of ASBOs and replacing them with measures that will actually deliver for local communities, deter antisocial behaviour and put communities back in charge. She mentioned funding for Sure Start. That funding is provided through the early intervention grant, but, crucially, we are ensuring that Sure Start is focused on the very families it was set up to help in the first place—the very families that most need our help and support.
	The right hon. Lady talked about police cuts. She never misses a chance to demonstrate her fiscal irresponsibility, and I knew that today would not be any different. She attacked cuts in police spending, but she did not say that it was the stated policy of her party to cut police spending. On her comments about police numbers, let me tell the House what she said about gangs and police numbers in August:
	“Boots on the streets are not enough to sustain safe communities”.—[Official Report, 11 August 2011; Vol. 531, c. 1151.]
	I wonder why she has changed her mind.
	The right hon. Lady also talked about other spending cuts. Let me tell her what Jacqui Smith, the former Labour Home Secretary, said just this morning:
	“You need to be much better at measuring the impact of the money we spend as well as simply spending it.”
	I suggest that the right hon. Lady take a lesson from her. The shadow Home Secretary seems to think that gang problems have been caused by this Government and did not exist under the previous Government, but let me remind her what she said in August:
	“I agree that more needs to be done about gang culture, which has been getting worse.”—[Official Report, 11 August 2011; Vol. 531, c. 1151.]
	Yes: getting worse under the Labour Government. Just this morning, Jacqui Smith said that Labour “hadn’t done well enough” in tackling gang violence”. She has
	been straight about her record; it is a shame that the shadow Home Secretary cannot bring herself to be straight too.

Robert Halfon: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Does she agree that the best way of getting young people off the conveyor belt to crime is to target early years and ensure that young people have access to education and community projects such as the Prince’s Trust and the college in my constituency, and organisations such as Catch22? Given that the previous Home Secretary has said that in the past money was not always spent as it should have been, does my right hon. Friend agree that spending money on projects such as those that I have described is the right way forward?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that early years intervention is key, and it is part of the work to prevent young people from getting involved in gangs in the first place. Early intervention might be needed at a very early age indeed, with toddlers, to ensure that they do not go down that road. That is why it is so important to ensure that money is spent in the right way, on projects that will make a difference and really work.

Keith Vaz: I welcome the Home Secretary’s proposals and the appointment of Louise Casey to head the new unit. The right hon. Lady will have noted the evidence of Bill Bratton, one of the guests at her international conference and round table, who said:
	“You can’t arrest your way out”
	of gang problems. Early intervention has been a theme of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) for a number of years. What worries me is who will co-ordinate the various initiatives. A number of Departments are involved and monitoring will be crucial, so will it be her, as Home Secretary, or another Department?

Theresa May: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I pay tribute to Louise Casey for the work that I know she will do and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who has appointed her to the troubled families unit, as part of his Department’s work. Let me also record our thanks to Bill Bratton, whom the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. He came over and visited a number of projects in the UK, participating in our round table and international forum on gang and youth violence. Crucially, he also gave hope from the projects that he had seen that it is possible for the UK to turn the problem around. The right hon. Gentleman is right to focus on monitoring, and, as I said, this is the start of the process. The inter-ministerial group that I chaired alongside my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will continue and will oversee the work currently being undertaken.

Nick de Bois: The Home Secretary will be aware of the problems with gangs and knife crime that my constituency faces. My constituents will warmly welcome her announcement, but does she envisage a role for volunteer organisations, which already do a lot of work, in delivering the strategy on the front line?

Theresa May: Yes, I can absolutely reassure my hon. Friend that I see a significant role for voluntary organisations. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and I attended a round table set up by the Centre for Social Justice, at which we met people from a number of voluntary groups, including some ex-gang members who are doing excellent work. Indeed, it is often voluntary groups that can make a difference to young people involved in gang membership, or to those about to get involved, and that can turn them around.

Hazel Blears: The Home Secretary might be interested to know that at 5 o’clock this morning 24 people across Salford and Manchester were arrested in connection with incidents during the disturbances in the summer. Much of the evidence was gathered using CCTV and DNA, a message that I am sure the right hon. Lady will take away. The family intervention projects will be essential to ensuring that our young people do not follow that path. Will she assure me that some funds from the Home Office and the family intervention projects will be targeted on Salford, to ensure that we keep our young people away from these problems in future?

Theresa May: I was aware of the work being done by Greater Manchester police, who have been doing excellent work following the riots, as have a number of other forces across the country. It is absolutely the case that, among the variety of amounts of money that are going to be made available for various aspects of this scheme, some will be focused on the Greater Manchester area. We will identify 30 areas for which £10 million from the Home Office will be available next year, and we are working with the Association of Chief Police Officers, which is mapping the gangs at the moment, to identify those areas. We have already identified Greater Manchester as one of the three areas—alongside the west midlands and London—into which specific Home Office funding is going in for the guns, gangs and knives project.

Tom Brake: I welcome the analysis that underlines the fact that parental neglect, violence at home, truancy and exclusion are factors that can lead to gang membership. I also welcome the five areas on which the Government are focusing, especially pathways out. On that point, what support can the Government provide for suitable role models and mentors who can steer young people away from gangs and towards a more positive future?

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point. One aspect of the way in which we intend to operate involves ensuring that people are able to identify at local level what will work in their area. In looking at various projects, I have seen that the people who are the most effective in persuading others to leave gangs are often former gang members. They have been through it, they know that a different life is possible, and they can give others the benefit of their personal experience. I have seen that happening in a number of areas, and I believe that a number of local areas will want to follow up on that aspect.

Glenda Jackson: My constituency is served by two boroughs: Brent and Camden. In both, the funding for the safer communities and youth offending teams has been slashed. In Brent,
	it has been slashed by almost 18%, and in Camden by more than 27%. I agree with the Home Secretary that we can tackle gangs only through a multi-agency approach, but every other agency to which she referred in her statement is suffering from similar cuts, so how can that intensive support to which she referred be delivered?

Theresa May: One of the points that the hon. Lady is missing is that, sadly, over the years, significant sums have been spent on projects that are not as effective as they should be. There are families out there on whom hundreds of thousands of pounds are being spent by various Government agencies, often not working together, and this is not effective. The problems still persist. The work that has been done in Waltham Forest, however, shows that if we bring together agencies such as the police, the local authority and others to tackle gang violence, yes, we spend money on those individuals, but we end up saving money by turning their lives around. Often, the effective intervention is not the expensive intervention.

Paul Maynard: I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, but a short prison sentence of two months for youths convicted of knife crime does not offer the opportunity for complete rehabilitation. Does she agree, however, that it might offer a vital opportunity to diagnose previously hidden conditions such as communication delay, which could be a key factor in people entering pathways to crime?

Theresa May: I commend my hon. Friend’s work on this issue. I know that he takes it very seriously, and that he has looked into the impact of communication delay on young people. In relation to sentencing, it is important to send a clear message about the importance that we attach to doing something to reduce and stop knife crime. We also need to look at the interventions that take place when young people are undertaking custodial sentences, to ensure that we can rehabilitate them and take the opportunity to turn their lives around.

Gerald Kaufman: Youth unemployment in my constituency is higher than it has ever been, and this is directly caused by Government cuts—[ Interruption. ] It is directly caused by Government cuts. Educational opportunities have been blighted by the abolition of education maintenance allowance, and a youth club in my constituency is in jeopardy because of Government cuts. What option is the Home Secretary going to provide for young people in my constituency apart from the streets? Will she provide direct funding for organisations such as Reclaim and Trinity House in my constituency, which combat the effects that this Government have created?

Theresa May: As I have said, specific funding will be available, which will be targeted at projects in those areas of the highest violence and those areas with the most significant problems. We are working with the Association of Chief Police Officers to identify those areas. I also say to the right hon. Gentleman that he really should not try to rewrite history: youth unemployment was going up for six years under the last Labour Government.

Paul Uppal: To view this issue from a purely financial perspective is prosaic. From my experience, one reason why many
	young people join gangs is that are seeking a surrogate or substitute family. This is particularly the case among young men who are often looking for a positive male role model. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s initial response on role models. Will she elaborate on how positive male role models could play a role in this issue?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend has identified a very important issue. As I said earlier, it is absolutely the case that, sadly, all the Opposition only ever want to talk about is the amount of money being spent rather than about how it is being spent and how we can act intelligently to make a real difference. Ensuring that there are positive role models—particularly male role models—available to young people in these gangs is an important part of that. My hon. Friend is also right that, sadly, for too many young people involved in these gangs, the gang effectively substitutes for a family. When I met a former gang member, I was struck when he told me that when he was out in the streets with the gang, his mother was lying at home dead-drunk.

William McCrea: The Home Secretary states that agencies must work together to focus on the early intervention in the foundation years. What responsibility does she feel the family has in that area of intervention and how do we harness family and parental responsibility?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. In helping a young person either to come out of gang membership or to prevent him from getting involved in the first place, it is often important not just to look at that individual but at the whole family. As I indicated in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal), the problems sometimes lie in the family, and it is that family background that is a significant cause of what is happening to the young person. Work that is being done—for example, early intervention work by health visitors, family nurse partnerships and so forth—is important in providing essential support within a family.

Mark Spencer: I wonder whether the Home Secretary would recognise that there is a significant role for local authorities and housing associations in taking firm action against families that commit criminal activity or antisocial behaviour. Moving those families on by evicting them not only gives the community around them a respite but gives the family a chance for a fresh start somewhere else.

Theresa May: That is absolutely right. In fact, moving families on can help in two ways. One is where the family are creating particular problems on an estate or in an area, and the housing association or local council can take action that can relieve the rest of the community. Another is in circumstances where in order to get a potential gang member away from the area in which the gang is involved it is necessary to move that gang member and the family. There can be a positive move as well as a negative one, so to speak.

Jeremy Corbyn: Everybody abhors gang violence and the cultures that go with it, but does the Home Secretary recognise that some young
	people are attracted by a perverse sense of glamour towards gangs as an escape from overcrowded housing or as an escape from the lack of job opportunities or youth facilities? Because they cannot develop themselves in those ways, they see a gang as something worth looking at. Should we not instead invest in jobs, housing and communities as much as in all the other palliative measures that the Home Secretary has suggested?

Theresa May: A great many young people live in difficult circumstances but do not turn to gangs. Of course it is important for us to look at gang membership and youth violence in the round rather than arresting our way out of the problem, because it is not possible for us to arrest our way out of it. As I said earlier, young people coming out of prison who claim jobseeker’s allowance will go straight on to the Work programme. We must make a real effort to deal with problems such as unemployment, and to help those young people to find a different route through life.

Patrick Mercer: I am sure that the Home Secretary was as impressed as I was by the work of Nottinghamshire constabulary, many of whose central Nottingham stations came under sustained and potentially lethal attack by petrol bombers during August. I accept that prevention is better than cure, and I note the Home Secretary’s strictures about knives and firearms, but what is being done, and what will she do, about the carrying and preparation of petrol bombs?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend has raised an important issue. We have not addressed it in the review, but I shall be happy to consider it. I pay tribute to the work done by Nottinghamshire police in defending both people and premises. As he says, they came under significant and sustained attack during what was a very difficult time.

Fiona Mactaggart: It is the judgment of Slough’s local police commander, Richard Humphrey, that the reason there was not more serious violence in the town that I represent, despite the risks posed by such factors as gang membership, was the contribution of Aik Saath and other youth organisations. What help is the Home Secretary offering youth organisations that can prevent problems of this kind?

Theresa May: As I have said, specific help will be provided in some parts of the country. Funds will be made available for projects that help young people to turn their lives around, and we will concentrate on the areas where the most significant problems exist.

Rob Wilson: I welcomed the statement, although I am not sure whether it was necessary for all five of the areas that my right hon. Friend mentioned to begin with a P. As she knows, many gangs carry knives. What preventive measures are being taken to prevent young people from carrying knives in the first place?

Theresa May: The Home Office was very pleased when Brooke Kinsella did an important piece of work for us last year, which resulted in a report that was published earlier this year. It concerned projects around the country that involve working with young people to deter them from carrying knives. The Ben Kinsella fund, which is being administered through the Prince’s Trust, has received funds from the Home Office to support such projects.
	Meanwhile, the Department for Education will be considering what materials can be made available to schools to help them get the message across to young people about the problems and dangers of knives.

Pete Wishart: Has the Home Secretary taken a good, close look at the efforts of Strathclyde police to tackle gang violence? Does she believe that they have been successful? Unlike her Government, the Government of the Scottish National party have increased the number of police on the streets of Scotland by 1,000. Will she also take a look at today’s proposal by the Scottish Government to introduce minimum alcohol prices, which will deal with the alcohol problems that fuel so much youth violence?

Theresa May: I am aware of the alcohol-related problems in Scotland that have led the Scottish Government to introduce their minimum pricing policy. I have spoken to Strathclyde police, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has also done so on a number of occasions. When representatives including Karyn McCluskey made a presentation to our inter-ministerial group, they made it very clear that although effective policing was necessary, it was not just a question of policing, but also a question of working with others. When I was in the area I was able to talk to some former gang members, and also to a gang member who is trying to leave the gang. They too made it clear that while policing is part of the process, it is not the only element. Working with other agencies is what really makes the difference.

Gareth Johnson: Does the Home Secretary agree that tackling gang behaviour in prisons is vital if we are to tackle such behaviour, including violence, when those people are eventually released on to the streets?

Theresa May: Yes, and one of the things we will be doing is looking at the support that is available for young people in young offenders institutions. The Metropolitan police are already doing work at Feltham to ensure both that there is no gang violence in the institution and that gang members are helped and given the support they need to leave the gangs.

John Cryer: I was pleased to hear the Home Secretary mention the London borough of Waltham Forest. It has a pioneering anti-gang strategy that has used resources properly, as I am sure will be confirmed by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith). However—the right hon. Lady can probably guess what’s coming next—many of the budgets that feed into that strategy are facing the squeeze. The Home Secretary talks about resources that she hopes will be available in the future, but we must have access to them fairly quickly. How might that be done in the near future?

Theresa May: Sources of funding are available, such as the innovation fund, for which authorities can bid, and which will have a specific role in making funding available for gang-related projects. The chief executive of Waltham Forest and local Metropolitan police representatives came to speak to the inter-ministerial group, and they made the point that the amount of money they were spending effectively on families was often lower than
	the amount that Government collectively might have been spending on them in the past. There is therefore a significant reduction in the amount of money that needs to be spent to deal with this issue.

Richard Graham: The Home Secretary is right to highlight the benefits of partnership-working. Last week, I visited the newly formed Quedgeley youth centre, which replaces the local authority’s former Echoes youth club. It has been created by an innovative partnership led by local Conservative councillors and financed by Prospect Training Services, other businesses and the Quedgeley Community Trust. Early indications are that the new youth centre is proving even more popular with the young, and that it will be very successful. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating all those involved in this local initiative, which shows the benefit of partnership-working, at zero cost to the taxpayer?

Theresa May: I am very happy to welcome the opening of the Quedgeley centre, and I am sure from what my hon. Friend has said that it will do excellent work locally in helping young people and providing the support they need. He also makes the valid and interesting point that dealing with these issues is not all about Government spending money—sadly, a message that Opposition Members seem to have failed to understand.

Clive Efford: The Government have cut 60% from community safety budgets, including £10 million from London alone. Will the right hon. Lady clarify the position in respect of the £10 million she has announced today? Is it the same £10 million she announced back in February for early intervention? If it is, will she undertake to write to Members to explain what has been cut today as a result of her announcement?

Theresa May: I can confirm that we were making a further £10 million available next year for the early intervention fund. We will be ensuring that that money is specifically spent on projects related to gang and youth violence projects. [Hon. Members: “Ah.”] Well, Opposition Members say “Ah,” but—[Interruption.] I have never been able to imitate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), so I shall not attempt to do so. I simply make the point I made earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller): we are talking about a new approach, and about working across the whole of government—[Interruption.] Opposition Members are making the mistake of thinking that the only thing that matters is the amount of money that is available to spend, when what matters is how we spend it—a lesson that, sadly, the Opposition failed to learn during 13 years in Government. That is why they wasted so much taxpayers’ money and we are now paying the price.

Bob Stewart: When I watched the police videos of what happened in Beckenham and Bromley, I was aghast to see families arriving in cars and then getting out and going on organised looting trips, and those family members were not the usual suspects. Is there anything we can do to stop this opportunist thievery?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes the point that we did see some opportunist criminal activity during the riots, but I remind him that just under three quarters of
	the people involved in the riots who have been identified so far had a previous criminal record of some sort and that 25% had 10 or more criminal offences on their record. So what we saw was sheer criminality on our streets.

Meg Hillier: Crime in my borough of Hackney is at its lowest for 12 years and Hackney’s integrated gangs intervention unit has seen a drop in gang violence of 59% in the 18 months that it has existed. I hope that the Home Secretary will place in the Library the details of where the £10 million will be allocated and that she will seriously examine the issue of gang injunctions. My local police and the integrated gangs intervention unit say that there are real challenges in getting gang injunctions to stick. They and I plead with the Home Secretary to re-examine antisocial behaviour orders and keep them until she is sure that gang injunctions work. Will she tell the House how many gang injunctions have been issued to date?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady raised a number of issues. The amount of money made available to Hackney from the early intervention grant allocation in the current financial year was, of course, about £20 million. We will be identifying the areas that the Home Office funding will be going to. As I said in response to the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), we have also already put money into Greater Manchester, the west midlands and London—the three areas where most knife crimes are committed—in looking to work with projects to tackle those knife crimes. So that funding has been available.
	Only a small number of adult gang injunctions have been introduced so far. As the hon. Lady will know, the injunctions were introduced only earlier this year, but their use is increasing. I am aware that there were some issues in the early days in relation to their implementation, but we are getting through those teething problems and the gang injunctions have been used in areas where they have been effective.

Kris Hopkins: I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. Yesterday, two gang members from my constituency were found guilty and sentenced, one to an indefinite term for firing a double-barrelled shotgun in a drive-by shooting. Does she agree that violent criminals must be given the most serious sentences to stop them bringing fear and destruction to our towns, and that this Government will relentlessly pursue these individuals?

Theresa May: We will absolutely do that. I assure my hon. Friend that we are ensuring that tough sentences for the worst of our criminals are indeed available, and I commend his local police on having made those arrests.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. In seeking to accommodate more colleagues, notwithstanding the pressures of time, I do appeal now for extreme brevity in questions and answers alike.

Heidi Alexander: The Home Secretary has said that she has reallocated £10 million-worth of early intervention money to focus on gangs and serious youth violence. However, her Government will spend five times that sum on the elections for police and crime commissioners. I say to the Home Secretary: why not take that £50 million and put it instead into the local projects that are already saving lives and of which she has already spoken so highly?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady seems to have failed to notice that this Act has actually passed and the police and crime commissioners will be introduced. They will be carrying out a very important task—that of being a directly elected local voice for local communities to determine policing in their area.

Bob Blackman: I welcome today’s statement and commend the work of the Met police in combating gang cultures across London. That work is very expensive. It is also time-consuming and takes many years to come to fruition, and once the police do it and break the gang, a vacuum is created into which another gang can move. What actions can be taken to prevent new gangs from being formed where an old gang has been eliminated?

Theresa May: This is why we are absolutely clear that this is merely the start of a process and that what we are doing is putting in place sustainable, long-term work. It is necessary not just to bring certain individuals out of gang membership, but, sadly, to ensure that we prevent other young people from becoming part of new gangs that would replace those existing gangs. That is why preventing people from getting into gang membership in the first place is a key element of what we want to do.

Tony Lloyd: The Home Secretary will know that the success in Greater Manchester in reducing gun crime has been through this type of multi-agency working, so what she describes is the application of common sense. However, resources do matter because many of the agencies involved are under financial pressure. Will she introduce an independent element of monitoring to ensure that we can see that the issue of money will not stop the effectiveness of these programmes?

Theresa May: I commend the work of Greater Manchester police, which has done excellent work in its Excalibur project. As the hon. Gentleman says, cross-agency working has made a very real difference to what it has been doing. I come back to the point that has been raised by many Opposition Members about funding and money. The issue is about how we spend the money that is available and about making sure that it is targeted on the right people and on interventions that are going to be effective. Over the years, Governments have spent so much money on dysfunctional families and on individuals who are gang members, but often to no effect. We must change that.

Graham Evans: Does the Home Secretary agree with the comments of Jacqui Smith this morning that Labour had not done well enough on tackling gang crime?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us what the former Home Secretary said this morning. Her comments are in stark contrast to those from Opposition Front Benchers today, showing real recognition that there was more to be done and that Labour did not have all the answers, as well as, I am sure, supporting the work we are doing.

Ann Coffey: The response of local safeguarding children boards to the recent investigation by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre into the extent of child sexual exploitation has been very disappointing. Will the Home Secretary ensure that directors of social services who have a statutory responsibility for child protection respond to any request for evidence regarding children who are vulnerable to gang-related violence in the preparation of her cross-departmental report?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady raises a very important point. The issue of child sexual exploitation is also being looked at by the Children’s Commissioner, who has undertaken research in this area. It is right that we should get the right response when an individual has been identified as being vulnerable and I shall certainly draw the hon. Lady’s comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

Gavin Barwell: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s comprehensive statement. Communities such as mine will welcome her honesty in accepting that Governments of both persuasions have not done enough to tackle this problem in the past. May I press her on one point? Is it not the case that the police and Government agencies on their own are not going to solve this problem and that working with the communities who are affected and getting them to turn against gang members within their community is a key element?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. This is an area in which the Government do not have all the answers and cannot achieve the necessary results by working on their own. As I indicated in response to an earlier question, what is often going to be most effective at helping young people to come out of gang membership or at preventing them from getting into a gang in the first place is groups in the voluntary sector and operations such as Kickz through which the Premier League and the Football Foundation are working to provide alternative activities for young men on a Friday or Saturday night.

Sheila Gilmore: The Home Secretary has praised the Strathclyde project greatly. That project cost about £5 million over two years, so how can £10 million being spread over 30 areas get anywhere near the success of the Strathclyde project?

Theresa May: I have commented favourably on the Strathclyde project but it is not the only project that is working across the UK. The Matrix project in Merseyside, the Excalibur project in Greater Manchester, and the work of the Met in certain parts of London have also been effective, and in Birmingham, the West Midlands police are also doing very good work in this area. I come back to a point that I have made on a number of
	occasions in response to questions from Opposition Members—this is about ensuring that money is spent in a way that will be effective. Sadly, in nearly an hour of questions, no Opposition Member has sought fit to recognise that the cuts in spending taking place across the public sector are because of the financial deficit left by the previous Government.

James Morris: May I welcome the cross-government approach to solving this problem? Does the Home Secretary agree that the most important thing in relation to resources is that they are genuinely devolved to the local areas and communities that are best placed to tackle difficult underlying problems?

Theresa May: We are taking a different approach. It is important to recognise that there is no one-size-fits-all model that can be imposed on every local area. Local areas will need to come to an understanding of what is going to work in their particular communities. That is why it is important that responsibility is devolved and that funding is available at the local level. It is also why the ending gang and youth violence team that we will be setting up will be available at a local level to work with the agencies to ensure that they are getting the answers that are going to work.

Joan Ruddock: I can assure the Home Secretary that money spent by Lewisham council and the police has been very effective, but since the right hon. Lady has been in power cuts to the community safety and youth offending team budgets have been of the order of 20% and the number of victims of knife crime has risen by almost 40%. Does she honestly believe that those two things are not connected?

Theresa May: Many issues affect the level of knife crime in a particular area. I am announcing today a cross-government strategy that is going to make a real difference to gang membership and youth violence, which, sadly, blights too many communities.

Jake Berry: I have seen personally the wraparound support provided by voluntary mentoring in my constituency, especially by the Lighthouse Foundation supported by the Methodist Church. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on what role voluntary mentoring can and will play in tackling gang violence and family breakdown?

Theresa May: Voluntary mentoring of individuals can have an incredibly important role to play in tackling both gang membership and youth violence. There are many projects out there in which voluntary and charitable groups provide necessary support to families that helps them to bring up their children in a way that prevents them from going down the route of gang violence. I commend the project that my hon. Friend mentions. I am sure that it is doing excellent work in his constituency, as it does elsewhere in the country.

Richard Burden: The Home Secretary has on several occasions emphasised the importance of partnership working between the statutory agencies and the voluntary sector, not only to divert young people from joining gangs—I hope that we
	do not see all young people as a potential problem—but to bring out the talents that they have inside them. Even if the right hon. Lady does not like what Opposition Members are saying about resources, does she accept that youth workers and voluntary groups are also saying that the resources are not enough? What assurances can she give them, if not us, that she is listening to them?

Theresa May: Of course the vast majority of young people are not involved in gang membership and violence. We should recognise that all too often the only stories that people read about young people are bad stories, not good ones. The House should perhaps do more to recognise that the vast majority of young people do not get involved in this sort of activity.
	I have seen across the country that what makes a difference is how you spend the money that is available, targeting those who are most in need, and targeting money effectively. Sadly, over the years money has been spent that has not led to a change. We want to change young people’s lives.

Catherine McKinnell: We did not witness riots in Newcastle over the summer thanks in large part to significant investment and partnership work supporting engagement with young people in the city. Does the Home Secretary share any concern that cutting 544 police officers, 185 community support officers and 60% of community safety funding has the potential to undermine that good work?

Theresa May: I think I have answered the point about resources several times now.

Stephen McCabe: The Met has said that gang association is one of the most difficult things to prove evidentially. How will the Home Secretary be confident that those who benefit from all the incentives that she is offering people to give up gang membership are genuinely gang members and not just the dispossessed who have had all other avenues closed down and have to claim to be gang members to get some help?

Theresa May: As I said, we are working with ACPO in particular to map incidence of gangs and gang memberships. Obviously at local level that will rely on information that is available to the police and other agencies. We are focusing not just on gang membership but on gang and youth violence. So in some areas work will be undertaken on a broader remit than simply looking at gang members.

Kate Green: The Home Secretary has rightly emphasised the importance of community leadership in tackling and addressing gang violence. She will of course be aware that there is a risk that the community can become alienated if public agencies get the relationship wrong. How will she ensure that the good will of communities, which is so essential to the success of her proposals, is secured and monitored?

Theresa May: That is where setting up the ending gang and youth violence team—people who can give help, support and advice at local level about putting projects in place and what will work in the area, and making sure that the relationships are right—will be so important.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The point has been rightly made already that on their own police boots on the ground are not the solution to gang and youth violence; there has to be a much more joined-up approach. Does the Home Secretary share any of the concern about the loss of something like 1,900 police from the Metropolitan area? Will it have no impact whatever on the strategy that she has outlined today?

Theresa May: As I have said in the House on many occasions about the cuts in police spending that are taking place, we know from evidence from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and from other factors that it is possible to make cuts in police spending while maintaining front-line services.

Karen Buck: The single most important thing that we can do is to create sustained trusting relationships between young people at risk of gang violence and responsible adults, whether volunteers in voluntary youth organisations or workers in statutory youth organisations. May I make a plea to the Home Secretary that we break with recent tradition and do not just make interventions that last 12, 20 or 30 weeks, which disrupt those relationships and often cause more damage than they prevent, but make sure that the interventions are there for years—for the duration? That is the way in which we shall disrupt the dysfunctional relationships of the street, and sometimes in families, that have led to the crisis.

Theresa May: I have made it clear that what I am talking about today is the start of a process; it is important that it is sustained over the long term, because as the hon. Lady says, that is the way we shall make a real difference to people’s lives.

Points of Order

Paul Goggins: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice about the reduction in the time that will now be available for debate on the first group of amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. When we voted on the programme motion yesterday, we did not know that there was to be an important statement from the Home Secretary about gangs and youth violence. The consequence of the statement is that a wholly inadequate two and a quarter hours for debate will now be little more than one hour, barely time for the Front-Bench spokespeople to exchange views. Could you give us advice, Mr Speaker? These are controversial amendments, which deal with the sentencing of the most dangerous people in our community, yet they have been introduced not at 5 minutes to midnight but at 1 minute to midnight, with no debate on Second Reading or in Committee. Is there any way that we can reclaim that time, Mr Speaker, and will you make it clear to Ministers that you will not put up with this abuse of the parliamentary process?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me advance notice of his point of order. I fully understand the frustration expressed about the short time now available for discussing the first group of new clauses on longer sentences. The right hon. Gentleman will know that on the one hand it is in effect up to Ministers when to make statements to the House and that on the other hand I am bound by the terms of the programme motion agreed yesterday by the House. I can only advise him to make his point to the Procedure Committee whose Chairman is lurking, doubtless with intent, at the back of the Chamber, and has now progressed into the main body of the Kirk, for which we are grateful. Others will no doubt also have heard the right hon. Gentleman’s point.
	Because this is an immensely serious matter, I would in addition appeal for extreme brevity from the Front Benches—a brevity that we did not witness yesterday—in the debates today, and from Back-Bench colleagues, so that matters of great importance to those outside the House can be properly considered.

Meg Hillier: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Since August I have been in contact with the Home Office about the timing of today’s statement and talking about a cross-party meeting. Last Wednesday I asked the Prime Minister when the gangs report would be published and he said, “When it’s ready.” Yesterday I got an answer to a named-day question which said it would be published soon, yet on Sunday night on The Guardian website it was announced that it would be presented to the House today, and in today’s papers the detail was revealed. I ask your views on this and wonder whether it may be time for the House to throw in the towel and look first to The Guardian website for information about what the Government are doing, rather than expect the courtesy of the House being informed first.

Mr Speaker: I reiterate what I have said before, which is that Ministers should make key statements to the House first. I would never advise any Member to throw in the towel, as the hon. Lady puts it. There is significant evidence of important statements starting to be made first in the House. Ministers know that when that does not happen, there is a strong possibility of an urgent question application being granted. That did not use to happen; it now happens on a substantial scale, but I think it would be fair to say that achieving progress in these matters is not a matter of an isolated act, but rather of a continuous process. The point of order demonstrates that this is very much work in progress. We have no reason to be complacent. That point is addressed not least, as it has to be, to those on the Treasury Bench.

Education and Training (Young People with Autism)

Motion for leave to introduce a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Lee Scott: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to make provision for the education and training of young people with autism and Asperger’s syndrome; to ensure that work opportunities are provided for those young people; and for connected purposes.
	One of the biggest worries for parents who have children with autism, Asperger’s or any other special needs is what will happen when they are no longer here. Will the young person, when they become an adult, be able to look after themselves? Will they have gainful employment? I pay tribute both to my own Government and to the previous Government for the work that has been done to try to make headway on employment for young people suffering with autism, Asperger’s and any other special needs.
	According to the National Autistic Society,
	“There are more than 350,000 working age adults with autism in the UK. NAS research has found that, whilst many people with autism want to work, just 15% of adults with autism are in full-time paid employment and 9% are in part-time employment.”
	Research shows that 79% of people with autism on incapacity benefit want to work, but need some support to get into work and retain employment. One in three people with autism is without any financial support from employment or through the benefits system, with many reliant on their families for such support. In a study carried out by Research Autism in 2008 for NAS Prospects London on the experiences of employing people with autism, seven in 10 employers questioned had had a very positive experience of employing people with autism, Asperger’s or other related conditions, and said that they would recommend it to others.
	BBC Radio York contacted me this morning about the parent of a young son with autism. The parent filled out an application form for a job and filled out another for the son. The application form requested that a box be ticked if the applicant had a disability: the form indicating no disability got the applicant an interview, whereas the applicant whose form indicated there was a disability did not. Whatever the employment climate is, and however difficult things are, people with autism are not getting a fair chance.
	I want to praise an organisation called Kisharon, which runs a printers and a bicycle repair shop staffed solely by young people with autism, Asperger’s or other special needs. Together with a group called Interface, which is one of my local groups serving young people with autism, Asperger’s or any special needs, and the London borough of Redbridge, with private backing—I am sure the Treasury will be pleased to hear that, as there will be no financial impact on the Treasury—they are looking at how we take matters forward.
	I have had meetings with leading companies where we plan to run a pilot scheme that will allow them to employ young people and for the young people to have training through local authorities so that they can achieve
	what they deserve—the best possible future. Obviously, I am not a professional and could not decide who would be suitable for what role.
	I came into contact with one young man who found it difficult to interact in the workplace. An employer took this young man on, although there were difficulties. There were days when perhaps the young man took offence or had a problem with things that others may not have, but that firm took that into account and worked with that young man and he has now been there for some three years and is a valued employee. For obvious reasons, I do not intend naming him.
	I also want to consider how this scheme can be rolled out. At the outset, these young people need to be assessed. We need to know what skills they have. We know only too well that many young people with autism or Asperger’s syndrome are brilliant with computers and IT, but may not have great communication skills in the workplace. There is no reason why they cannot work from a satellite centre or from home.
	The scheme must be overseen, because people have to be put forward as mentors in companies to work with young people and make sure that it works out. I hope to work with my Government and with charities such as the National Autistic Society, Kisharon, Interface and many others to take this forward and to run a pilot to get young people into employment and achieving as much as possible.
	I return to the point about where such people might live. Many parents are concerned about what will happen to their child when they are no longer around. I have visited many small houses where four or five young people live with a housekeeper but look after themselves and go out to employment and to courses. That is the way forward for people in this group. We then need to analyse the programme’s outcomes over the years. I know from my conversations with the National Autistic Society and others that they want to see it rolled out throughout the country, so that the young man in York can find employment just as easily as the young man living in Ilford North or Redbridge.
	Lord Freud has taken this matter forward in the other place and is meeting businesses, and I look forward to working with him on this. If we do not take this forward and get involved in helping, we will truly be letting down some of the most vulnerable people in our society. We all have concerns about youth unemployment. We heard them during the statement on gang crime and we have heard them in various debates, but I do not believe that anyone is happy with the present situation. I know that my Government want to take action on this. Words from me are not enough and I sincerely hope that I will receive the backing of every Member in the House today and can then return in a year’s time and say that this is working for the young people who have autism, Asperger’s and other special needs. I hope that I will be able to work with everyone in the House to achieve it and show that it is a success.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Mr Lee Scott, Jon Cruddas, Dr Sarah Wollaston, Mike Gapes, Mr Brian Binley, John Cryer, Simon Kirby, Mr John Leech, Robert Halfon, Paul Maynard, Dr Julian Huppert and Mr. Robert Buckland present the Bill.
	Mr Lee Scott accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 January 2012 and to be printed (Bill 242).

Mr Speaker: Before we come to the main business of the day—the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill—we have a point of order.

Karl Turner: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I have some guidance on whether it is appropriate for the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), to speak for the Government on this part of the Bill, given the media interest from The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian in his business interests in the insurance industry? I know that the Government have had a problem with this because they took part of his responsibilities from him on 17 October.

Mr Speaker: The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that it is for Members to take responsibility for their own interests and, as necessary, if they think it appropriate, seek advice from the Registrar, and there is of course an obligation upon Ministers, of which the Minister will be well aware, to comply with the ministerial code, but beyond that no special comment needs to be made on the matter. It is perfectly proper for the Government to decide which Minister should take the proceedings on the Floor of the House.

Jonathan Djanogly: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that my financial interests have today once again been regurgitated by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), and given that they formed the subject of a complaint by his colleague the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), I think it is wrong of him, almost to the point of being misleading, not to mention that the Cabinet Secretary found, and informed his hon. Friend of the fact, that I had declared my relevant interests, had not acted in conflict of interest and had acted in the public interest. Will the hon. Gentleman now acknowledge that?

Mr Speaker: The Minister has put the position, including new evidence, very clearly on the record. However, points of order cannot be the occasion for a debate, which would be wrong. The Minister has clarified the position, Members will have heard it—

Graham Stuart: Apologise now.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), has important responsibilities in the House. I do not want him at this early hour to get overexcited; that usually happens later in the day, not yet. Let us proceed in a seemly manner with the help of the Chair of the Select Committee.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
	 — 
	[2nd Allocated Day]

[Relevant Documents: The Third Report fro m the Justice Committee, on the  Government’s proposed reform of legal aid, HC 681, and the Governm ent’s response thereto, Cm  8111 . ]
	Further consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill  Committee

New Clause 30
	 — 
	Abolition of certain sentences for dangerous offenders

‘In Chapter 5 of Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (sentencing: dangerous offenders) omit—
	(a) section 225(3) to (4) (imprisonment for public protection for serious offences),
	(b) section 226(3) to (4) (detention for public protection for serious offences),
	(c) section 227 (extended sentence for certain violent or sexual offences: persons 18 or over), and
	(d) section 228 (extended sentence for certain violent or sexual offences: persons under 18).’.—(Mr Kenneth Clarke.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Government new clause 31—Life sentence for second listed offence.
	Government new clause 32—New extended sentences.
	Government new clause 33—New extended sentences: release on licence etc.
	Government new clause 34—Power to change test for release on licence of certain prisoners.
	New clause 3—Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence—
	‘In Schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003—
	“(a) Substitute paragraph 5(2)(g) with—
	“(g) a murder that is racially or religiously aggravated or aggravated by sexual orientation or disability,”
	(b) Substitute paragraph 5A(10)(b) with—
	“(b) the fact that the victim was at greater risk of harm because of age or disability,”.’.
	Government new schedule 4—‘Life sentence for second listed offence etc: new Schedule 15B to Criminal Justice Act 2003 Offences listed for the purposes of sections 224A, 226A and 246A.
	Government new schedule 5—‘Life sentence for second listed offence: consequential and transitory provision.
	Government new schedule 6—‘New extended sentences: consequential and transitory provision.
	Government new schedule 7—‘Release of new extended sentence prisoners: consequential provision.

Kenneth Clarke: The new clauses and schedules relate to the abolition of sentences of imprisonment for public protection, known as IPP sentences. They were introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and have been in operation since 2005. Since their introduction, there have been numerous problems with them. The Government’s policy is that they must be replaced, and we have brought forward proposals to do so. My proposals to replace them with tough determinate sentences have inevitably aroused criticism from both the right and the left—the story of my life, as I complained yesterday. We are replacing a regime that did not work as it was intended to with one that gives the public the fullest possible protection from serious, violent and sexual crime.
	The sentences in their present form are unclear, inconsistent and have been used far more than was ever intended or contemplated by either the Government or Parliament when the sentence was first created. The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), who is in his place, was very much involved in their introduction. I have no idea exactly what his view is now, but I am sure that he never imagined that thousands of people would be detained in prison indefinitely under these sentences. The debates at the time contemplated only a few hundred people.

David Blunkett: I shall be extremely brief, given the time. It would be helpful, following the Secretary of State’s meeting with me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), if he assured the House that reconsideration of the detail will take place in the House of Lords. There is no difference between those of us who accept that the original intention has not been followed through and those who think that the changes that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) introduced have not fully bitten as intended, but the propositions before us this afternoon do not meet the specific need that was identified back in the early 2000s by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, and which I carried into being.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows that he should make a short intervention, not a speech at this stage.

David Blunkett: I have finished.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he may have finished, but he should not take so long in future.

David Blunkett: I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Kenneth Clarke: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I will remember the need for extreme brevity. I am grateful for the discussion with the right hon. Members for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough and for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), and I will follow up the account by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East of the experience in Northern Ireland. We all acknowledge that where we are is not where anyone intended us to be. That is why we are addressing how to deal with serious and violent offenders.
	I am sure that the words of the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough will be noted in the House of Lords. He speaks here with great authority. We will reflect on what is said by those who say that of course we have not got it quite right.

Derek Twigg: rose—

Elfyn Llwyd: rose—

Kenneth Clarke: Normally I would give way, and if we had a full day of debate, I would have expected to give way to Members on both sides of the Chamber—[ Interruption. ] It is not my fault. Let me first finish explaining the general case. I will then try to give way as generously as I can. It would be quite possible to take so many interventions that they filled the remaining time, but I have no intention of doing so.
	I remind the House that in June the Prime Minister announced that the Government intended to replace IPP sentences. He and I had agreed on that. We had originally proposed in our Green Paper greatly to restrict the number by raising the threshold above which IPP sentences were given. The sentencing parts of the Bill were received extremely well in public consultation because those who responded were largely those involved in the criminal justice system, but we received many representations saying that IPP sentences should abolished completely, which is why we have moved on.

Derek Twigg: rose—

Elfyn Llwyd: rose—

Kenneth Clarke: I said that I would give way when I had finished my general points, and I will do so in a few moments.
	I was referring not just to my opinion and that of the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough. I shall remind the House of some of the people who have said similar things. Louise Casey, the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses, whose appointment to deal with problem families has been welcomed, said that she was pleased there would be a review of indeterminate sentences as they
	“often leave victims in a horrible situation of not knowing when a criminal may be released from prison”.
	She welcomed the proposal that tougher determinate sentences will be sought instead. Tim Godwin—as we all know, he was acting Metropolitan Police Commissioner until recently, and is now deputy commissioner and the criminal justice lead for the Association of Chief Police Officers—said he welcomed the review of IPP sentences and its focus on robust alternatives that will ensure the public is protected from the most serious offenders, as it is a source of frustration for victims and their families as to what a sentence actually means.
	I cannot resist adding that the shadow Justice Secretary has suddenly taken up an extraordinarily far right position on this issue at the last moment. I have looked up what position he took, or at least what position Liberty took when he was its chairman in 2002, when indeterminate sentences were first introduced. At that time Liberty, under his chairmanship, denounced IPP sentences as
	“a convoluted sleight of hand”
	which aids neither accessibility of law or transparency in the sentencing process. His successors at Liberty have not changed their mind. I said yesterday that tomorrow he would press an amendment that has mandatory sentences for 12-year-olds. Old Fabians must be spinning in their graves as the former chairman of the Fabian Society takes up a totally opportunist position.
	What is wrong is that indeterminate sentences are unfair between prisoner and prisoner. The Parole Board has been given the task of trying to see whether a prisoner could prove that he is no longer a risk to the public. It is almost impossible for the prisoner to prove that, so it is something of a lottery and hardly any are released. We therefore face an impossible problem.
	As I have said, IPP sentences are piling up, and they have been handed down at a rate of more than 800 a year even after the changes made in 2008. At the moment, more than 6,500 offenders are serving those sentences, of whom more than 3,000 have finished what the public regard as their sentence—the tariff for what they have done. If we do not do anything about it, the number of IPP sentences will pile up to 8,000 or 9,000 by 2015—10% of the entire prison population. Sometimes, their co-accused who committed the same crime and were given a determinate sentence were released long ago. That is unjust to the people in question and completely inconsistent with the policy of punishment, reform and rehabilitation, which has widespread support. Only Opposition Front Benchers are still in favour of a punishment that leaves a rather randomly selected group to languish indefinitely in prison, for their lifetime if necessary.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Kenneth Clarke: I will now take some interventions, and then go on as quickly as I can to describe the much better, more sensible and tough regime with which we are going to replace IPP sentences.

Elfyn Llwyd: I actually agree with doing away with IPP sentences. It is costing about £70 million per annum to keep those who are beyond tariff in prison, so I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s announcement as far as it goes.

Kenneth Clarke: I am very grateful, and I really would be astonished if I had managed to make myself more radical than the right hon. Gentleman. No one ever regarded me as a liberal Home Secretary, but I am commending perfectly sensible, common-sense ideas.

Derek Twigg: Has the Secretary of State been listening to police officers such as the one in my constituency who has written to me to say that IPP sentences are working? He gives the case of an individual who set fire to a house, causing danger to others, who clearly presented a serious risk to the public. That police officer states:
	“IPPs are a very useful tool for the Courts and I respectfully suggest that they should be retained and any issues with how they are implemented be looked at instead.”
	That is a police officer serving on the front line.

Kenneth Clarke: I do not claim rank for Mr Godwin, but I quoted what he has said behalf of ACPO. Of course there are always dissenting views—I have never presented
	any proposal on anything that has had 100% approval—but the overwhelming majority of responses from those involved in the criminal justice system suggested that IPP sentences should be repealed. Those are not people who wish to be soft on crime, but they believe that IPP sentences have not worked as intended, as we have already heard in today’s exchanges, and need to be replaced. To reassure policemen, such as the one that the hon. Gentleman mentions, that a tough new regime will give them protection, I will spell out elements of the new regime.

Philip Davies: Is not the fact of the matter that indeterminate sentences have a very low reoffending rate, and that most members of the public rather like the idea that people are not released from prison until it is safe? What will my right hon. and learned Friend do to ensure that people who are released go through all the necessary treatment and programmes to address their offending behaviour before they are released?

Kenneth Clarke: My hon. Friend’s last point is perfectly fair, and I am about to make some points that should reassure the great bulk of the public. Of course we must have in place a very effective method of dealing with all those who commit the worst sexual and violent offences. No one is suggesting that we do not need an effective regime for that.
	For the very serious offenders, the ones who are among the worst of the likely inhabitants of Her Majesty’s prisons, there will be a new mandatory life sentence. That will apply in cases in which the offender has committed, on two consecutive occasions, two very serious sexual or violent offences, when each of which has been serious enough to merit a determinate sentence of 10 years or more.
	I was criticised from the left in another place, and probably will be here, for introducing a new mandatory life sentence. We have only one at the moment, which is for murder, and everybody accepts it. As I have said, however, the new mandatory sentence is mainly intended to reassure those who, like my hon. Friend, are worried that the worst offenders might occasionally get out. We are talking about very serious offenders, most of whom would get a life sentence anyway if they had committed two offences meriting determinate sentences of 10 years or more. I do not think that many such people would avoid a life sentence, but as hon. Members can see, a life sentence in the new clause is subject to a caveat—the offender will receive a mandatory sentence unless their circumstances or the circumstances of the offence
	“make it unjust to do so”.
	The most important sentence for serious offenders will be discretionary life—the ordinary life sentence—which is already the maximum sentence for the most serious crimes in the calendar. That is the right penalty when the maximum penalty is life and the offence is serious enough. The British criminal justice system has always had that indeterminate sentence and I have never quite understood why it was thought necessary to create another one parallel to it. However, as I am now agreeing with those who introduced that sentence in the first place, I will not go into it.
	My new clauses make no changes to discretionary life. Both I and those who advise me anticipate that once IPP sentences are no longer available, much more use will again be made of discretionary life sentences. The worst people will go back to having life sentences, which we know works perfectly effectively and well. They will be under licence for life if they are ever released, before which there will be a Parole Board process.

Jack Straw: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain the practical difference between an offender who is given an IPP for, say, a minimum tariff of five years, who will then be released by the Parole Board on proof of meeting certain conditions, and someone who is given a discretionary life sentence with a tariff of five years who is released by the Parole Board on exactly the same conditions? What is the difference?

Kenneth Clarke: Well, there are differences in the regime, the sentence planning and so on, but not very many. I will go back to the point about the regime that we want to introduce for people with extended determinate sentences, but the right hon. Gentleman makes my point. What is wrong with saying that the courts should use the ordinary life sentence? They will use a life sentence when they judge that a case is so serious, and when future risk is so high, that it is the only proper sentence.
	For other offenders, we are introducing a new extended determinate sentence. The offender will receive a custodial sentence plus a further long extended period of licence set by the court. Those will be quite long determinate sentences, and the offenders who receive them will serve at least two thirds of them. In serious cases, offenders must apply to the Parole Board for release, and the board may keep them inside until the end of the determinate sentence.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Kenneth Clarke: I shall just finish explaining this point and then answer questions.
	The new sentence can be given for any sexual or violent offence, provided that the court thinks the offender presents a risk of causing serious harm through reoffending, and that the offence meets the four-year seriousness threshold that is currently in place for IPP sentences and extended sentences for public protection. The new sentence can also be given when the offender does not reach the four-year threshold, but has previously been convicted of an offence listed in proposed schedule 15B. I will cut out further detailed explanation, but that means that any offender who would previously have received an IPP will be eligible for the new sentence if he has not received either the mandatory life or the tougher, discretionary life sentence.

Alan Beith: I very much agree with what my right hon. and learned Friend is trying to do, but he is writing what is the likely practice of the court into the statute book. He mentioned the Parole Board and new clause 34, which causes me concern. He appears to be giving to himself and the Executive the power to direct a court when dealing with existing IPP prisoners, because the Parole Board is regarded in law as a court, and he will give directions to it under new clause 34.

Kenneth Clarke: I shall come to the Parole Board before I conclude my remarks, but we are not taking away its power: nobody who previously had an IPP will be released, even at the two-thirds point, unless they have first satisfied the board.
	The most obvious difference between life sentences, which will now be used more widely, and IPP sentences is that, in the case of life imprisonment, licences are for life and subject always to recall, whereas IPP sentences are not. However, as I said, criminals who complete an extended determinate sentence must then serve extended licence periods, during which time they will be closely monitored and returned to prison if necessary. The courts have the power to give up to an extra five years of licence for violent offenders and eight years for sexual offenders on top of their prison licence.
	There are further protections. Some people believe—the Labour Front Bench team certainly affect to believe—that we are exposing people to risk by making this much overdue change. We are also introducing—not in the legislation, but I undertake to introduce them—compulsory intervention plans for dangerous offenders while they are in prison, so that they are supported to change their ways and not commit more crimes when they are eventually released. By the end of sentence, offenders should therefore have undergone interventions—made in a more certain and organised way than at present—to address their offending behaviour.
	There is rightly concern that those currently serving IPP sentences should be supported in progressing through their sentences and achieving release on licence. However, we will be using our best efforts to improve the progression of these prisoners through sentence, including with improvements to assessment, sentence planning and delivery, and parole review processes. We continue to monitor outcomes to ensure further improvements in this area.
	There are yet further protections available to the court. We do not believe that our proposed changes put the public at risk or weaken our risk-management regime. Most sexual or violent offenders sentenced to 12 months or more in custody will fall under the multi-agency public protection arrangements framework, which means that the relevant authorities will work together to co-ordinate assessments of risk and risk-management plans for the offender once they have been released on licence. Robust risk-management systems are now in place for a range of offenders. Court orders are also available to manage the risk of serious sexual and violent offenders who appear to present a risk at the end of their sentence. Violent offender orders and sex offending prevention orders place restrictions on these offenders, and if they breach those orders, they can be sent back to prison.
	In the sentencing Green Paper, we raise the question of whether the Parole Board’s test for release in these cases is the right one, because only a tiny number of people ever emerge from prison at the moment—the rate is less than 5% a year—and we are acquiring people who are still in prison years after they finished the tariff that the judge imposed on them. This is a question that we will explore further. The amendments give the Secretary of State a power to change the release test used by the Parole Board, which is set in statute for IPP prisoners and for prisoners serving the new extended sentence. The power will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
	We will consult carefully and see what happens to the Parole Board and the courts once we have made the present form of sentence extinct for former prisoners.
	The trouble now is that someone who has finished his tariff has to stay in prison unless he can persuade the Parole Board that it is safe to let him out. [Interruption.] That is it; that can be difficult, sitting in a prison cell, although we are going to produce some management plans. On the other hand, if we are keeping someone in beyond their tariff, it is certainly arguable that we should have some positive reason for fearing that there is a risk that he is going to offend when he leaves. We have to reflect—we will consult on this—on whether we have been giving the Parole Board an almost impossible task. It is no good pretending that it can come to a scientifically certain conclusion in each case. None of us would like to say, if we met a range of prisoners, which were now reformed and which would offend again. The Parole Board gets it wrong now: some of those it releases offend again, while some of those in prison are never going to offend again, if we can actually get them out. We will consult on whether the current release tests for IPP sentences and the new extended indeterminate sentence ensure effective public protection while allowing everyone to be satisfied—as far as they can ever be satisfied in this world—that the offenders can now be safely managed in the community.

Jack Straw: rose—

Kenneth Clarke: I shall give way one last time, because I am trying to be brief so that we can have a debate.

Jack Straw: Some 40% of discretionary and mandatory lifers are post-tariff. They have to prove that it is safe to release them. Can the Secretary of State please explain what the difference is in substance between someone on a life sentence who has to satisfy the Parole Board that it is safe to release them and someone on an IPP?

Kenneth Clarke: Because the judge, in full knowledge of the circumstances of the offence and the offender, has decided that such a serious offender should get life imprisonment, it is—

Sadiq Khan: The same now.

Kenneth Clarke: It is not. What I think the right hon. Gentleman is saying—I will listen to him in a moment—is that he proposes to defend what is left of the last Government’s proposals, the author of which acknowledged quite early in my speech that they plainly needed to be changed. If I get the chance, I will listen to what the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) is trying to argue, but he seems to be reassuring us that life sentences fulfil that requirement for the very worst people—that they are looked at carefully before being let out again—and those people will be on licence for life: once they start going in for aberrant behaviour, they can be recalled to prison and punished once more.
	Apart from the very outlying people on the right and the left, I hope that I have satisfied everybody. It is high time that we reformed indeterminate sentences. Personally, I am amazed that they have survived judicial review and challenge in the courts thus far, but if something was not done, they would not survive very much further,
	which would lead to unfortunate consequences if a court suddenly started ordering us to release such prisoners and decided that they were being held unlawfully. I have recently described them as a “stain on the system”. I said that at a private meeting in the House of Lords—although it soon found its way into the press—but it is my opinion. What we are putting in place is protection for the public: far more rational, certain, determinate sentences, which is much more in line with how we think the British system should behave.
	I will, of course, be followed in this debate by the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan). I have already expressed my amazement at his position, and I have found some other quotations from him in my time. I cannot understand how he can match up to his present position. For example, when we both started in July last year, his leader—the current Leader of the Opposition—said:
	“I don’t think we should try to out-right the right on crime,”
	and said that I was
	“opening up an opportunity for us to redefine part of the debate about criminal justice.”
	Only a few weeks ago, addressing the Howard League, the right hon. Member for Tooting said—in a lecture that I thought put him in a very convoluted position between his conscience and where he is at present—that
	“our big challenge is to communicate that punishment and reform can and should go hand-in-hand…To deliver this calls for an honest debate”.
	The right hon. Gentleman, the shadow Justice Secretary, is a radical lawyer from south London—he is more radical than I am—and he is trying to “out-right” me in what is an absurd and hopeless case. What we are putting in place is an altogether rational and sensible system.

Sadiq Khan: I thank the Justice Secretary.
	“Public safety remains our primary concern and indeterminate sentences will always be appropriate for the most serious crimes”—
	not my words, although I agree with them entirely, but those of this Government’s Green Paper, “Breaking the Cycle”, which was published in December 2010. How things have changed in just 11 months: instead of what was said then, at the last minute—and after interference from No. 10 Downing street—there was suddenly no mention of indeterminate sentences when the Bill was published in June, more than four months ago. At the last possible moment—at one minute to midnight—we are presented with new clauses that propose the total abolition of indeterminate sentences.
	That is compounded by the ludicrous timetabling of today’s proceedings, whereby, because of the earlier ministerial statement and the knife that will halt proceedings on the new clauses at 6 pm, we are left with only 73 minutes in which to debate them for the first time. This is no way to go about passing legislation that is supposed to protect the public from some of the most serious and violent offenders. Why are the Government scared of debate? The Justice Secretary should be ashamed.
	Of course, responsibility for these new clauses and the consequences that will flow from them lies not with the Justice Secretary; it can be placed firmly at the door of No. 10. From what we can see, the Justice Secretary is no longer in charge of his own Department. Back in
	June, it was the Prime Minister—without the Justice Secretary being present—who presented the Government’s justice policy. I have a huge amount of respect for the Justice Secretary, but I am afraid he has become the mere puppet of a Prime Minister who appears no longer to have confidence in his abilities. I might be the shadow Justice Secretary, but he is a shadow of his former self.
	The new clauses appear to have been conjured up, but it is not just their timetabling that is rushed. Their incoherence smacks of rushed drafting as well. They have had no pre-legislative scrutiny. The proposals did not form part of the Second Reading debate, and they were not debated at all in Committee. Now, we have less than half an hour in which to discuss them on the Floor of the House on Report, which rides roughshod over public concerns.

Kenneth Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be using his time to complain about not having enough time. Before he develops any conspiracy theories, may I make my position clear? I have spoken out against indeterminate sentences in the House before. The Green Paper proposed to restrict them, and I explained why. The announcement in June was made after the most careful discussion with the Prime Minister. We both agreed it, and the idea that I have been forced into accepting the abolition of indeterminate sentences is complete nonsense. The consultation process encouraged me to believe that serious people in the justice system were prepared to go for total abolition, and I leapt at the opportunity, as should the right hon. Gentleman, as a former chairman of Justice and of the Fabian Society. I cannot imagine where he thinks he is taking the labour movement to.

Sadiq Khan: We now know that, when this Government review policy, it means that they abolish it. This is the same Justice Secretary who signed off the Green Paper last December.
	Not for the first time, the Government will have to leave it to colleagues from all parties and none in the other place to perform the scrutiny that this Bill deserves. The Justice Secretary is presenting us today with a blueprint that will risk more crime, more victims, and more serious and dangerous offenders being out on the streets. It is as simple as that, and he knows it. No amount of smoke and mirrors can disguise the fact that, by abolishing indeterminate sentences, he is risking the safety of communities in each and every constituency.
	“Many dangerous criminals will be released, including repeat offenders, regardless of the risk they pose to the public.”
	Those are not my words, but those of the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), now the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, back in 2008, when he was commenting on the changes to indeterminate sentences that we made when we were in government. We made changes to them, but this Government are now proposing to abolish them altogether. What happened to the party that believed in law and order?
	I spent a few minutes this morning finding recent cases in which judges had given an indeterminate sentence to a convicted offender to protect the public. I will not give the names of the offenders or the victims, as I do not want to cause the victims further distress. A South
	Wales police press release from September this year bears the heading “Indeterminate prison sentence for convicted rapist”.
	It goes on:
	“A Cynon Valley man described as a ‘dangerous individual’ has been given an indeterminate sentence for the rape of two women and wounding of another…D, who the judge described as a dangerous individual, will not be considered for parole for six years. D’s victims have released the following…statement: ‘Our lives will never be the same after the trauma D has put us through. We were physically, mentally, financially and emotionally abused and controlled by him. We are satisfied with the court’s decision to give him an indeterminate sentence and relieved that no-one else will suffer like we have.’”
	In this October’s online version of the Birmingham  Mail was the headline, “Teenager jailed for stab attacks on father and son in West Heath”. The article stated:
	“A teenager has been given an indeterminate sentence for stabbing a father and son while they tried to protect a ‘petrified’ youngster who sought refuge in their Birmingham home…Judge William Davis QC said: ‘You stabbed both the householder and his son causing both of them significant injury. It is a very serious offence because two people were attacked on their own door step and one of them left perilously close to death.’ The judge said he believed J to be a ‘dangerous young man’. After sentencing”,
	the victim said,
	“I am extremely pleased the judge recognised the seriousness of the offence. It shows the public that carrying knives will not be accepted in society today.”
	This month’s North-West Evening Mailcontained the headline, “Caustic soda brute loses appeal against sentence”, and continued:
	“A ‘dangerous and manipulative’ thug, who scarred a teenager for life by pouring caustic soda on her face, has been told by top judges he deserved his indefinite jail term…On Thursday G challenged his indefinite jail terms, with his lawyers also arguing the minimum five years he was ordered to serve before applying for parole was ‘excessive’. But his appeal was thrown out by judges sitting at London’s Criminal Appeal Court, who described G as a ‘very dangerous man’ who should not be released from prison until the Parole Board considers it safe to do so…Sentencing him, the crown court judge said he was a ‘controlling, manipulative, emotionless and uncaring man’ who was a danger to women…The appeal judge”,
	Mr Justice Spencer,
	“said: ‘The judge was quite correct to conclude that the appellant should not be released until the Parole Board deems it safe for him to be released.’”

Kenneth Clarke: Can the right hon. Gentleman think of any good reason why, given the remarks he has provided about the sentences, that the perpetrators would not have been given a life sentence? Normally, people like that would get a life sentence. Since there have been IPP sentences, some people have got them, but in the cases the right hon. Gentleman describes, judges will go back to the normal practice of giving a life sentence.

Sadiq Khan: They will not. The right hon. and learned Gentleman’s proposals require there to have been a first offence, and the schedule provides for sentences of 10 or more years. The person found guilty will have to have come back for a second offence and be found guilty of an offence that also requires a sentence of 10 or more years. In all these cases—the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows this—the Government will have taken away from the judge who has heard all the evidence and knows the facts of the case the power to give the IPP sentence.

Kenneth Clarke: There is no qualification for a life sentence. People can be sent down for a life sentence for their first offence if it is serious enough and demonstrates the danger posed to the public. We are not introducing any qualifications at all to the power to give life imprisonment.

Sadiq Khan: I could not have demolished the arguments better than the right hon. and learned Gentleman just has. He makes the exact point for me. Under the proposals we are presented with today, our judges will be stripped of the power to prevent the most serious criminals from being released and going on to be a danger to society. We can imagine a scenario—and an horrific one at that—of someone committing a serious and violent assault being caught, charged and found guilty. Under the Government’s new proposals, I accept that they might receive an extended determinate sentence and be eligible for release after two thirds of their sentence, should the Parole Board be satisfied. However, even if the Parole Board were not satisfied after two thirds of the sentence had elapsed, there would be nothing to prevent release at the end of the full sentence handed down by the judge. Dangerous individuals would be released at the end of their extended determinate sentence irrespective of whether they posed a risk to the public. Under the new proposals, judges will be able to do absolutely nothing about that. They will be powerless to deprive the offender further of his liberty in order to keep the public safe. I should be happy for the Justice Secretary to intervene on that point, but he apparently does not wish to do so.

Kenneth Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman clearly did not understand my question. He gave some dreadful descriptions of dreadful cases, featuring what—when the full circumstances are known—are clearly some of the worst examples of violence and sexual offences that could be found. The point is, however, that such people will receive life sentences, because such sentences are available to the court, and they will not be released until someone is satisfied that they are no longer as great a risk as they were. They will be subject to licence for the rest of their lives, and it will be possible to recall them if they start behaving in any sort of threatening way. The life sentence fills the gap that the right hon. Gentleman claims I am creating. We are not changing the position at all.

Sadiq Khan: I realise that the Justice Secretary has not practised law recently, but if a judge could deliver a life sentence for such offences now, he or she would do so. It is because judges have the power under the IPP sentence to deliver indeterminate sentences to protect the public that they deliver those sentences. I am afraid that the Justice Secretary is not right.
	A critical weapon will be absent from a judge’s arsenal, preventing that judge from handing down the most appropriate sentence. The judge will simply not be able to sentence the offender with the condition that only when the authorities are satisfied that he is not a risk to society will he be released. I know that that will free up prison places and save the Government money, but taking risks with public safety is plain wrong, which is why we will oppose new clause 30.
	Public safety will also be compromised by the proposed “two strikes and you’re out” sentences. That is a great media soundbite and a sure-fire way of making the
	Government seem tougher than they really are, and it is precisely the kind of thinking that lies behind the inclusion of the words “punishment of offenders” in the Bill, but policies relating to public safety cannot be determined by a public relations strategy.
	We do not have to scratch very far beneath the surface to see that the Government’s plans are riddled with problems. Not only are they a rehash of failed Conservative policy from the 1990s, but they introduce a worrying amount of risk—risk that will undermine public safety. Through their “two strikes” policy, the Government absolve themselves totally of any responsibility to identify the serious, violent offenders who are most likely to reoffend. That should be done at the time when the first sentence is handed down for the commission of a heinous crime. It was for the purposes of precisely this scenario that the previous Government created indeterminate sentences, but this Government are making no effort to protect the public from those who are most likely to commit further serious and violent crime following their release. They will address the problem only once the offender has committed a second crime.

Graham Stuart: The right hon. Gentleman has cited cases, and appalling cases at that, in which he feels that an indeterminate sentence is appropriate. Can he give any examples of cases in which he thinks that an indeterminate sentence has not led to justice—in which people have been locked up for many years, perhaps longer than they should have been?

Sadiq Khan: I shall come to the challenges posed by IPP sentencing. I accept that criticisms could be made about cases of people who should perhaps have been released and have not been. The hon. Gentleman has made a fair point. However, I do not think that the Government should risk the possibility that their policy will create countless additional victims, pain and misery that could be prevented if they took seriously their responsibility to keep the public safe. It should also be noted that the threshold for the handing down of a mandatory life sentence for the second offence is higher than that required for an indeterminate sentence. As a result, there is a risk that some of the most dangerous and serious criminals will not even be covered by the “two strikes” proposals. All that points to the need for some kind of indeterminate sentence that judges could use only in the most serious circumstances.
	The 2008 reforms helped to deal with some of the problems that were inherent in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and I pay tribute, as did the Justice Secretary, to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) for the work that he did at that time. If the Government think that further reform is required, they can take many positive lessons from Northern Ireland’s successful introduction of indeterminate custodial sentences. I know that the Justice Secretary has corresponded with Northern Ireland colleagues, and has had discussions with my right hon. Friends the Members for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) on this very matter. He has said nothing, however, about why he believes the Northern Ireland experience does not contain lessons for England and Wales; instead, he simply dismissed that possibility out of hand.
	I am on record as saying that I want IPP sentences to be reformed so that they work as originally envisaged. I am happy to work on a cross-party basis to achieve that, so that IPP sentences protect the public from the most serious violent reoffenders. What I am not willing to do is play hard and fast with public safety.
	I have also previously said that we need to look at the backlog of prisoners who have served their minimum tariff but are still in prison. That involves addressing the shortage of suitable courses and programmes to support those on indeterminate sentences. This problem has been exacerbated by the cut of about 25% in the Justice budget. One thing I will not support, however, is any watering down of due process before release of those who have served their minimum tariff. Instead, this Government have decided that indeterminate sentences should be discarded lock, stock and barrel, and there is now no mention at all of how they will deal with the backlog.
	It is accepted that the Government’s plans will involve an even greater role for the already over-stretched Parole Board on release decisions and increased amounts of licensing, and I foresee serious problems ahead. There will be more call on the already over-stretched programmes and courses to support the rehabilitation of serious and violent offenders. The Justice Secretary must be clear with the House if, as a result of his bungled last-minute sentencing proposals, the extra resources required by the Parole Board and the prison service in order for them to be effective will not be forthcoming. If that is the case, he must explain how he expects the service to deliver more with the same budget.
	All this is happening at the same time as the prison population is at crisis point, with more overcrowding, fewer programmes to support rehabilitation, and less power to the judges. The Justice Secretary’s claims that his reforms would “restore public confidence” and bring “common sense to sentencing” are laughable. How does he believe that abolishing indeterminate sentences, and replacing them with extended determinate sentences and “two strikes” sentences, will provide greater clarity? Perhaps he might also wish to explain to the public why he feels that it is “common sense” to restrict the power of judges to prevent the most serious and violent criminals most at risk of reoffending from being released from prison.
	Nor do the Justice Secretary’s proposals seem to chime with his desire, which I share, to increase the amount of discretion on offer to judges. A judge’s role is to make a judgment, within certain parameters, based on the facts of the case, not simply to do as the Justice Secretary of the day instructs. Last week when appearing before the Home Affairs Committee the Justice Secretary reiterated his opposition to moving towards more mandatory sentences, yet just a week later we are presented with increased mandatory life sentences and the removal of the option of a judge handing down an indeterminate sentence if the circumstances permit.
	I urge the House to reject new clause 30. We should leave IPP sentences on the statute book so that judges can continue to give indeterminate sentences to protect the public in appropriate cases.

Philip Davies: Unlike the Front Benchers, I will try to keep my speech brief so as to allow other Members to contribute.
	The Government are making a serious mistake by getting rid of indeterminate sentences, and I believe the decision will come back to bite them on the bottom. The vast majority of people serving indeterminate sentences have committed crimes such as manslaughter, other homicide and attempted homicide, other violence against the person, rape, other sexual offences, robbery and arson. Why on earth would we want a Government who think it is perfectly acceptable to let those people out of prison before they are deemed safe to be released out among the public?

Sadiq Khan: It is being done to save money.

Philip Davies: The shadow Secretary of State has hit the nail on the head. The Secretary of State started off in his post by saying that the most important thing for him was reducing reoffending. Well, we are talking about the crown jewel in the criminal justice system for dealing with reoffending. [Interruption.] I know that the Liberal Democrats do not believe that—they are soft on crime so I would not expect them to accept it. By the end of last year, 206 people who had served indeterminate sentences had been released from prison and 30% of them had committed more than 15 previous offences. Many of these people were not just dangerous offenders, but persistent offenders. How many of those 206 had committed another offence by the end of last year? The answer is just 11, or about 5%. The Secretary of State would give his right arm for reoffending rates of that order across the criminal justice system, so why on earth does someone who is supposedly committed to reducing the reoffending rate want to scrap the best-performing part of the criminal justice system on reoffending? This beggars belief. It comes back to the point that his real motive is not about reducing reoffending or protecting the public; it is about reducing the prison population. That is the only thing that he has ever been interested in, and this measure is all the proof we ever needed that that is his only motivation. It is absolutely appalling that a Government supposedly dominated by the Conservative party—the party of law and order—could be letting dangerous offenders out of prison before they are deemed safe to be released.
	I wish to give a couple of examples of the people we are talking about from my local area of Bradford. Toffozul Ali was a convicted killer who was locked up indefinitely for a sudden and sustained knife attack in Bradford. Ali shook hands with his victim, Darren Jones, before stabbing him from behind, causing wounds to his arm, chest and knee. Ali already had a conviction for manslaughter for stabbing an Asian man to death when he was only 16, and he was branded a public danger and sentenced to an IPP. This Government seem to think it is fine that he can be released from prison before he is deemed safe to be released from prison—it is an absolute disgrace. Martin Ellerton was locked up indefinitely for stabbing his father to death, and he confessed to a six-year crime spree involving more than 630 offences of burglary and theft. These are the types of people we are talking about. The Secretary of State seems more concerned with their rights than with those of the people in places such as Shipley, who want to be protected from these people.
	Stephen Ayre was a convicted killer who abducted and raped a 10-year-old boy in my constituency when he was unnecessarily released from prison. The father of
	that boy has gone through the trauma of that to call publicly for the Secretary of State to rethink his proposals on indeterminate sentences, saying:
	“I would not wish what we’ve been through on anyone. The system failed my son six years ago. But Ken Clarke’s changes will only make things worse.”
	I guarantee that people will be released from prison who otherwise would not have been and I guarantee that those people will go on to commit serious offences. What will the people who voted for this measure think about that, given that they will have created unnecessary victims of crime?

Sadiq Khan: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the new proposals mean that it is possible for somebody to receive an extended determinate sentence, to go on no courses or programmes, to sit in their cell for the duration of the sentence and still be released at the end of their determinate sentence?

Philip Davies: I have a lot of sympathy with what the shadow Secretary of State says. The point is that, at the moment, these people are released only when they are deemed safe to be released. Under a determinate sentence—irrespective of whether or not people are safe to be released, whether or not they have gone through the programmes they need to go through to address their offending behaviour and whether or not they have behaved well in prison—they will be released back out to the public. That is an absolute disgrace, as is debating this issue in just 73 minutes, with 30 minutes for speeches by Back Benchers. I will give up at that point to make room for other people, but the Secretary of State should be ashamed of himself as this will measure create further unnecessary victims of crime.

Kate Green: I apologise for diverting the House to a rather different part of the debate, but my new clause 3, which I am pleased has support from Members across the House, is extremely important to a group of victims and their families—those for whom disability has been the motivation for murder or other violent crimes against disabled people. My new clause would apply the same minimum tariff in cases of murder in which disability has been a motivating factor as currently applies in similar cases with a sexual, racial or religious motivation. It would also shift the application of the aggravating feature of disability from being a matter of the victim being seen as vulnerable to a matter of the victim being at greater risk of harm, thereby firmly placing the obligation on the perpetrator.

Paul Maynard: I am delighted to support this new clause. Does the hon. Lady agree that although this might seem like an obtuse issue to hon. Members in the Chamber it is attracting great attention outside within the disabled community? Does she also agree that there will be utter incomprehension if we fail to make progress on this issue, which should be a simple matter of human dignity and equality?

Kate Green: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and he has raised this issue in the House and with the Lord Chancellor before. Many disability organisations and the families of victims of such crimes have contacted him and me to express their very deep concerns. I am particularly indebted to the Disability Hate Crime network,
	to Katherine Quarmby, an independent journalist, and to the Royal Association for Disability Rights. I am also especially indebted to Christine Oliver, the sister of Keith Philpott, who was a learning disabled victim of murder, for taking the time to talk to me about her family’s experience in relation to my bringing the new clause before the House.

Kenneth Clarke: I am sorry to intervene but, for the benefit of the debate on the other subject, may I assure the hon. Lady on behalf of the Government that we agree with her and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard)? I am advised that the new clause is defective in its drafting—I can tell her why—and I can assure her that we will table amendments in the other House to give effect to what she is asking for. We also propose to cover the transgender issue. I think that will help us to get on with the debate.

Kate Green: I am extremely grateful to the Lord Chancellor, as will be the many disabled people and their families who have been in contact with me. I am delighted that a Government amendment will be brought forward in the other place and I shall not detain the House further.

Alan Beith: The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) must be delighted that so brief and concise a speech has produced so immediate, thorough and satisfactory a response. I welcome what the Government are doing about this.
	I want to be brief so I shall resist the temptation to go into the extraordinary intellectual journey that the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) seems to have undertaken. I shall also resist the temptation to go into the habit of the previous Government of releasing people from prison at any moment when the jails seemed to be rather full without any reference to sentence planning or, for that matter, to the annual criminal justice Bill to which new clauses were always added on Report as far as I can recall—a practice I rather deplore because, as in this case, it denies us the opportunity to give new clauses proper scrutiny. I want to make it quite clear that the continuance of what I regard as a blot on the system—the use of indeterminate sentences—is something that I do not support. I therefore welcome the Lord Chancellor’s action to remove such sentences from our system, and I believe that view is widely shared in the criminal justice system.
	People are concerned about the possibility of serious criminals re-entering society and committing other very serious offences, but how can they conclude that the best thing to do with such people is to put them in prison without our having any idea how long they might stay there? Surely, it is better to have a much clearer idea that they will be in prison for a long time and that if they are ever released, it will be under licence for life. I do not see why it should be preferable for the public to be told, “Well, we’ve put the chap in prison, but we’re not really sure when he’ll come out and a board that you know very little about will decide whether it’s safe.” I think most members of the public would be quite suspicious of that and would rather hear that there was a clear and long sentence. I am suspicious of mandatory sentences, but as a means of giving reassurance on how the courts might be expected to behave in the
	sort of cases we are discussing, the mandatory sentence we are discussing can be justified, especially as it is very carefully worded with appropriate provision for justice.
	However, all this is only part of the story. None of it is any use unless we have proper sentence planning and proper offender management. Proper sentence planning is virtually impossible under the indeterminate sentences for public protection system, especially for those on shorter terms. People have not been completing the courses that they need to have completed to satisfy the parole board that they could be released. That system is untenable. We need effective sentence planning—and more determinate sentences are a better way of achieving that. We need proper offender management for offenders who are eventually going to leave prison. The Justice Committee has regularly stressed that the concept of offender management needs to include proper control. It should not be a system in which people are handed from one agency to another without a continuous process of supervision.
	The trouble with the procedure in the new clause is that we do not have the opportunity to probe the details by tabling a probing amendment. I asked the Lord Chancellor earlier about new clause 34. I think that it is well intentioned in that it is an attempt to deal with existing indeterminate public protection prisoners, but I am bound to question it because it gives to the Executive the power to direct the Parole Board on what should be done with an individual. That is a direction to a court—there have been court cases that have ruled that the Parole Board must be regarded as a court. So it is an odd way of proceeding and one that we might have amended in Committee had we been able to consider the measure. If there is an opportunity, I hope that I can hear a little more about why the measure has been introduced as a new clause tonight.

Jack Straw: I endorse the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) and the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). The hon. Member for Shipley, addressing the Lord Chancellor and his hon. Friends, said that the measure would lead to a number of dangerous offenders coming out of prison before it was correct to let them out. That, of course, is one of the key drivers of this policy. It is not about prison reform. The whole purpose of the measures put before the House last December was to cut the prison population by 6,500. The Lord Chancellor then ran into huge difficulties because he could not get his own side, our side or the judges to accept the 50% tariff for an early guilty plea and many other changes. I do not know the number exactly, but I do know that The Times quoted a Ministry of Justice spokesperson last Friday as saying that the changes would lead to a cut in the prison population of 2,500.
	The Secretary of State seemed to want to have it both ways. He damned the concept of the indeterminate sentence for public protection and suggested that it was a stain on the system. He also tried to reassure the House and the public by saying, “Don’t worry, we are going to do exactly the same thing, but it is going to be called a mandatory life sentence.”

Kenneth Clarke: May I correct the right hon. Gentleman? The impact statement will show the Bill as amended. Other things being equal, with no changes in the crime level—which depends far more on how long a recession we have, the levels of youth unemployment, how successful we are in dealing with drugs and how far we get with prison reform—the Bill will reduce the prison population by 2,300. The measure we are now debating will have no effect on the prison population in the period to 2015. The reduction in the prison population is achieved by measures already discussed and approved in the Standing Committee.

Jack Straw: It would have been helpful to have the impact statement before the House today rather than tomorrow. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying—picking up the point made by the hon. Member for Shipley—that no prisoner who cannot be released until he has proved that he is not a danger to the public will not be released in the future, what on earth are these convoluted changes for?
	The original design of the legislation in 2003 was unsatisfactory because it led in some cases to tariffs that were ludicrously short—in one case, 27 days. That was never the intention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) and it was causing a major problem. I, with the approval of the House, sought to change the law. It is worth Government Members remembering, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting pointed out, that we got no assistance whatever from the Conservative Opposition at the time. Their complaint was that we were going soft by introducing this change. It was absolutely extraordinary. I do not remember the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), now the Lord Chancellor, standing up either in the House or outside suggesting that there was an alternative. We made that change and, interestingly and wholly contrary to what was said, it has led to a stabilisation of the numbers on indeterminate public protection sentences. According to the Lord Chancellor’s statistical bulletin, in the most recent year the number of such sentences rose by only 3% over the previous year and the number of those receiving IPP sentences was 958 for the year ending March 2011, compared to one short of 1,000 for the year ending March 2010. The changes that were introduced are working.
	Yes, it is right that we should look in more detail at the Northern Ireland experience to see what other changes can be made, but it is entirely wrong for the Secretary of State to try to set up a new system that will lead either to the release of dangerous people who are serious and persistent offenders, thousands of whom are in prison for violent offences and sexual offences—in the main—or make no difference at all.

Geoffrey Cox: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Jack Straw: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will excuse me, I will not.
	The Lord Chancellor has been anxious to please the whole prison reform lobby—people who, bluntly, do not speak for the public, and rarely speak for the victims either in my experience, but even they will not be satisfied. Meanwhile, the public and innocent victims will be put at risk.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. May we have brevity? We want to hear as many speakers as possible.

Guy Opperman: I declare an interest as a former barrister and a former criminal prosecutor, who has worked on several murder trials.
	I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that I am not soft on crime, but I support the Government in their reform of this untenable, shocking and wrong system. With great respect to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), he should hang his head in shame for being party to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, both of which were useless pieces of legislation that introduced something that the Prison Reform Trust, the Institute for Criminal Policy Research, the Nuffield Foundation and the criminal justice joint inspectorate described as
	“one of the least carefully planned and implemented pieces of legislation in the history of British sentencing.”
	The flip-flops of the shadow Justice Secretary would put a kangaroo to shame. It is entirely right to reform a system that was underfunded, worked poorly and is manifestly wrong in the circumstances of a 21st-century country. I will speak only briefly but I remind the right hon. Member for Blackburn of the comments in the House of Lords on the 2003 and 2008 Acts, when the Lords addressed IPPs in the cases of the Crown v. James and the Crown v. Lee. In a decision that effectively lambasted the then Secretary of State, Lord Hope of Craighead said:
	“There is no doubt that the Secretary of State failed deplorably in the public law duty…He failed to provide the systems and resources that prisoners serving those sentences needed to demonstrate to the Parole Board by the time of the expiry of their tariff periods…that it was no longer necessary for the protection of the public that they should remain in detention.”
	I could go on to quote from the judgments of Lord Carswell and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, but I shall pause there.
	I have made it clear that I am not soft on crime, as others have suggested. The debate has sadly been too short, but the new clause should certainly be supported by the House.

Paul Goggins: I share the concerns expressed by hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House, but I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for the meeting he and his ministerial colleague held with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) and I. I am also grateful for the Lord Chancellor’s assurance earlier that he would still be thinking hard about the provisions as they go from this place to the House of Lords.
	I want again to assert briefly that the Northern Ireland experience was instructive, and if the Lord Chancellor was prepared to reflect on it, it would strengthen the flawed prospectus he has given us. The experience in Northern Ireland was based on a tragic case involving Trevor Hamilton, who murdered Attracta Harron when she was on her way home from mass in December 2003. My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) remembers the case well because he dealt with the issues
	too. Hamilton had been released at the halfway point of a seven-year sentence for rape, indecent assault and threats to kill. The public were outraged that such a dangerous individual could be released with no control whatever by the public authorities.
	The framework in Northern Ireland is based on two key principles. The first is absolute judicial discretion, with no presumptions about previous offences, such as there were in the 2003 Act—so complete judicial discretion. Secondly, judges have to go through a very clear process. Does the offence justify a life sentence? If it does, that is what the offender gets. If it does not, the judge must consider an extended sentence, which can give some degree of control over the release date, but the offender must eventually be released at the end of the extended custodial period. If that is not sufficient for public protection, only then can the judge give an indeterminate sentence.
	The result is instructive. The Northern Ireland Justice Minister, David Ford, has sent us a report, for which I commend him—the report should be put in the Library. There has been no significant change in the number of life sentence prisoners. There have been 68 extended sentences and eight indeterminate sentences in three and a half years. That system is in control and it offers the public protection.
	There are real risks with what the Lord Chancellor is proposing. If he is right and judges suddenly start to impose more life sentences, he will simply have replaced one problem with what he described as the original problem. He will have replaced indeterminate sentences with life sentences, which will bring all the issues relating to resources and parole that he faces currently. The most serious thing is that under his proposals all dangerous offenders not given a life sentence will have a definite date for release, which is a risk too far for this or any Government to take. It will leave a gap, bridged in Northern Ireland by the indeterminate sentence not as a first or a second option but as a complementary third option.
	I am glad that the Lord Chancellor is listening. I hope he heeds that lesson and that when he takes his legislation to the other place he will make further amendments.

Elfyn Llwyd: I am in favour of the Government’s decision to scrap IPP sentences in this instance. Liberty, among others, has said that IPPs could be a back-door measure to introduce life sentences for a huge range of offences. They were intended to be given only sparingly but of course they have been used far more frequently than expected. In March 2011, there were 6,550 IPP prisoners, half of whom served 240 days beyond their tariff, at a cost to the Exchequer of about £68 million. That is quite apart from the whole question of whether they were being held unlawfully, which worries many of us.
	As it stands, the IPP regime has been a costly mistake. Furthermore, the indefinite legal limbo created by IPP sentences has in many instances undermined rehabilitation, leaving prisoners and their families uncertain when, if ever, release will be granted. Like the Lord Chancellor, I wonder why those sentences have not been challenged in the courts. I have campaigned on the matter for a long time. In February, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill seeking the abolition of IPP sentences, so I am pleased about the Government’s decision.
	New clause 32 would mean that prisoners serving an extended sentence of at least four years in custody, who have a prior conviction for one in a list of serious offences, will be required to serve two thirds of their sentence, instead of being considered for release at the halfway point. I argued for such a provision when I introduced my Bill, so I am pleased that it has been introduced. However, like the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), I have concerns about new clause 34. I have grave concerns about interference in individual parole decisions. That proposal must be looked at in the other place. We do not have time to debate it properly today and I am sure that many Members, whatever their views, would have appreciated a sensible timetable.

Kenneth Clarke: I shall correspond with the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). The new clause was tabled at my request so that we can contemplate changing the test for release by statutory instrument. I shall explore whether it gives rise to the problems described. I certainly have no intention at the moment of intervening in individual cases and making judgments about IPP prisoners.

Elfyn Llwyd: That is certainly reassuring, but had we had a decent amount of time to discuss the proposals we could have probed them earlier. There is also some confusion about new clause 33, which will no doubt be picked up in the other place.
	I know that I have done nothing for my street credibility, and even less for the Lord Chancellor’s, but I believe that the IPP system has been brought into disrepute. It is only right that we do away with it, and to that extent I agree with what the Government seek to do.

Robert Buckland: I shall be brief. I support the Government’s amendments. We need a system that does not try to predict risk, but sentences according to the seriousness of the offence. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) made some very interesting points that deserve consideration, but now is the time for change. The current system is not sustainable. We are not dealing with the risk that these people pose and a system of determinate long sentences would be a far better service to the victims of crime, who are too often left in the dark about what happens in cases—
	Debate interrupted (Programme Order, 31 October).
	The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.
	The House divided:

Ayes 311, Noes 235.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	New clause 30 read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 31
	 — 
	Life sentence for second listed offence

‘(1) In Chapter 5 of Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (sentencing: dangerous offenders), after section 224 insert—
	“224A Life sentence for second listed offence
	(1) This section applies where—
	(a) a person aged 18 or over is convicted of an offence listed in Part 1 of Schedule 15B,
	(b) the offence was committed after this section comes into force, and
	(c) the seriousness condition and the previous offence condition are met.
	(2) The court must impose a sentence of imprisonment for life unless the court is of the opinion that there are particular circumstances which—
	(a) relate to the offence, to the previous offence referred to in subsection (4) or to the offender, and
	(b) would make it unjust to do so in all the circumstances.
	(3) The seriousness condition is that the court considers that the seriousness of the offence, or of the offence and one or more offences associated with it, is such as to justify the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment for 10 years or more, disregarding any extension period imposed under section 226A.
	(4) The previous offence condition is that —
	(a) at the time the offence was committed, the offender had been convicted of an offence listed in Schedule 15B (“the previous offence”), and
	(b) a relevant life sentence or a relevant sentence of imprisonment or detention for a determinate period was imposed on the offender for the previous offence.
	(5) A life sentence is relevant for the purposes of subsection (4)(b) if—
	(a) the offender was not eligible for release during the first 5 years of the sentence, or
	(b) the offender would not have been eligible for release during that period but for the reduction of the period of ineligibility to take account of a relevant pre-sentence period.
	(6) An extended sentence imposed under this Act (including one imposed as a result of the Armed Forces Act 2006) is relevant for the purposes of subsection (4)(b) if the appropriate custodial term imposed was 10 years or more.
	(7) Any other extended sentence is relevant for the purposes of subsection (4)(b) if the custodial term imposed was 10 years or more.
	(8) Any other sentence of imprisonment or detention for a determinate period is relevant for the purposes of subsection (4)(b) if it was for a period of 10 years or more.
	(9) An extended sentence or other sentence of imprisonment or detention is also relevant if it would have been relevant under subsection (7) or (8) but for the reduction of the sentence, or any part of the sentence, to take account of a relevant pre-sentence period.
	(10) For the purposes of subsections (4) to (9)—
	“extended sentence” means—
	(a) a sentence imposed under section 85 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 or under section 226A, 226B, 227 or 228 of this Act (including one imposed as a result of section 220 or 222 of the Armed Forces Act 2006), or(b) an equivalent sentence imposed under the law of Scotland, Northern Ireland or a member State (other than the United Kingdom);
	“life sentence” means—
	(a) a life sentence as defined in section 34 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, or(b) an equivalent sentence imposed under the law of Scotland, Northern Ireland or a member State (other than the United Kingdom);
	“relevant pre-sentence period”, in relation to the previous offence referred to in subsection (4), means any period which the offender spent in custody or on bail before the sentence for that offence was imposed;
	“sentence of imprisonment or detention” includes any sentence of a period in custody (however expressed).
	(11) An offence the sentence for which is imposed under this section is not to be regarded as an offence the sentence for which is fixed by law.”
	(2) Schedule [Life sentence for second listed offence: new Schedule 15B to Criminal Justice Act 2003] (new Schedule 15B to the Criminal Justice Act 2003) has effect.
	(3) Schedule [Life sentence for second listed offence: consequential and transitory provision] (consequential and transitory provision) has effect.’.—(Mr Djanogly.)
	Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 32
	 — 
	New extended sentences

‘(1) In Chapter 5 of Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (sentencing: dangerous offenders), after section 226 and the italic heading “Extended sentences” insert—
	“226A Extended sentence for certain violent or sexual offences: persons 18 or over
	(1) This section applies where—
	(a) a person aged 18 or over is convicted of a specified offence (whether the offence was committed before or after this section comes into force),
	(b) the court considers that there is a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm occasioned by the commission by the offender of further specified offences,
	(c) the court is not required by section 224A or 225(2) to impose a sentence of imprisonment for life, and
	(d) condition A or B is met.
	(2) Condition A is that, at the time the offence was committed, the offender had been convicted of an offence specified in Schedule 15B.
	(3) Condition B is that, if the court were to impose an extended sentence of imprisonment, the term that it would specify as the appropriate custodial term would be at least 4 years.
	(4) The court may impose an extended sentence of imprisonment on the offender.
	(5) An extended sentence of imprisonment is a sentence of imprisonment the term of which is equal to the aggregate of—
	(a) the appropriate custodial term, and
	(b) a further period (the “extension period”) for which the offender is to be subject to a licence.
	(6) The appropriate custodial term is the term of imprisonment that would (apart from this section) be imposed in compliance with section 153(2).
	(7) The extension period must be a period of such length as the court considers necessary for the purpose of protecting members of the public from serious harm occasioned by the commission by the offender of further specified offences, subject to subsections (8) and (9).
	(8) The extension period must not exceed—
	(a) 5 years in the case of a specified violent offence, and
	(b) 8 years in the case of a specified sexual offence.
	(9) The term of an extended sentence of imprisonment imposed under this section in respect of an offence must not exceed the term that, at the time the offence was committed, was the maximum term permitted for the offence.
	226B Extended sentence for certain violent or sexual offences: persons under 18
	‘(1) This section applies where—
	(a) a person aged under 18 is convicted of a specified offence (whether the offence was committed before or after this section comes into force),
	(b) the court considers that there is a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm occasioned by the commission by the offender of further specified offences,
	(c) the court is not required by section 226(2) to impose a sentence of detention for life under section 91 of the Sentencing Act, and
	(d) if the court were to impose an extended sentence of detention, the term that it would specify as the appropriate custodial term would be at least 4 years.
	(2) The court may impose an extended sentence of detention on the offender.
	(3) An extended sentence of detention is a sentence of detention the term of which is equal to the aggregate of—
	(a) the appropriate custodial term, and
	(b) a further period (the “extension period”) for which the offender is to be subject to a licence.
	(4) The appropriate custodial term is the term of detention that would (apart from this section) be imposed in compliance with section 153(2).
	(5) The extension period must be a period of such length as the court considers necessary for the purpose of protecting members of the public from serious harm occasioned by the commission by the offender of further specified offences, subject to subsections (6) and (7).
	(6) The extension period must not exceed—
	(a) 5 years in the case of a specified violent offence, and
	(b) 8 years in the case of a specified sexual offence.
	(7) The term of an extended sentence of detention imposed under this section in respect of an offence may not exceed the term that, at the time the offence was committed, was the maximum term of imprisonment permitted for the offence in the case of a person aged 18 or over.”
	(2) Schedule [New extended sentences: consequential and transitory provision] (new extended sentences: consequential and transitory provision) has effect.’.—(Mr Djanogly.)
	Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 33
	 — 
	New extended sentences: release on licence etc

‘(1) Chapter 6 of Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (sentencing: release and recall) is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 244(1) (duty to release prisoners on licence) (as amended by Schedule 13 to this Act) after “243A” insert “, 246A”.
	(3) After section 246 insert—
	“246A Release on licence of prisoners serving extended sentence under section 226A or 226B
	(1) This section applies to a prisoner (“P”) who is serving an extended sentence imposed under section 226A or 226B.
	(2) It is the duty of the Secretary of State to release P on licence under this section as soon as P has served the requisite custodial period for the purposes of this section unless either or both of the following conditions are met—
	(a) the appropriate custodial term is 10 years or more;
	(b) the sentence was imposed in respect of an offence listed in Part 1 of Schedule 15B or in respect of offences that include one or more offences listed in that Part of that Schedule.
	(3) If either or both of those conditions are met, it is the duty of the Secretary of State to release P on licence in accordance with subsections (4) to (7).
	(4) The Secretary of State must refer P’s case to the Board —
	(a) as soon as P has served the requisite custodial period, and
	(b) where there has been a previous reference of P’s case to the Board under this subsection and the Board did not direct P’s release, not later than the second anniversary of the disposal of that reference.
	(5) It is the duty of the Secretary of State to release P on licence under this section as soon as—
	(a) P has served the requisite custodial period, and
	(b) the Board has directed P’s release under this section.
	(6) The Board must not give a direction under subsection (5) unless—
	(a) the Secretary of State has referred P’s case to the Board, and
	(b) the Board is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that P should be confined.
	(7) It is the duty of the Secretary of State to release P on licence under this section as soon as P has served the appropriate custodial term, unless P has previously been released on licence under this section and recalled under section 254 (provision for the release of such persons being made by section 255C).
	(8) For the purposes of this section—
	“appropriate custodial term” means the term determined as such by the court under section 226A or 226B (as appropriate);
	“the requisite custodial period” means—
	(a) in relation to a person serving one sentence, two-thirds of the appropriate custodial term, and(b) in relation to a person serving two or more concurrent or consecutive sentences, the period determined under sections 263(2) and 264(2).”
	(4) Schedule [Release of new extended sentence prisoners: consequential provision] (release of new extended sentence prisoners: consequential provision) has effect.’.—(Mr Djanogly.)
	Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 34
	 — 
	Power to change test for release on licence of certain prisoners

‘(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide that, following a referral by the Secretary of State of the case of an IPP prisoner or an extended sentence prisoner, the Parole Board—
	(a) must direct the prisoner’s release if it is satisfied that conditions specified in the order are met, or
	(b) must do so unless it is satisfied that conditions specified in the order are met.
	(2) An order under this section may—
	(a) amend section 28 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (duty to release IPP prisoners and others),
	(b) amend section 246A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (release on licence of extended sentence prisoners),
	(c) make provision in relation to any person whose case is disposed of by the Parole Board on or after the day on which the regulations come into force (even if the Secretary of State referred that person’s case to the Board before that day),
	(d) make different provision in relation to IPP prisoners and extended sentence prisoners, and
	(e) include consequential provision.
	(3) An order under this section is to be made by statutory instrument.
	(4) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
	(5) In this section—
	“extended sentence prisoner” means a prisoner who is serving a sentence under section 226A or 226B of the Criminal Justice Act 2003;
	“IPP prisoner” means a prisoner who is serving one or more of the following sentences and is not serving any other life sentence—
	(a) a sentence of imprisonment for public protection or detention in a young offender institution for public protection under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (including one imposed as a result of section 219 of the Armed Forces Act 2006);(b) a sentence of detention for public protection under section 226 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (including one imposed as a result of section 221 of the Armed Forces Act 2006);
	“life sentence” has the same meaning as in section 34 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997.’.—(Mr Djanogly.)
	Brought up, and added to the Bill .

New Schedule 4
	 — 
	‘Life sentence for second listed offence etc: new Schedule 15B to Criminal Justice Act 2003

In the Criminal Justice Act 2003, after Schedule 15A insert—
	“SCHEDULE 15B

Offences listed for the purposes of sections 224A, 226A and 246A
	 — 
	Part 1
	 — 
	Offences under the law of England and Wales listed for the purposes of sections 224A(1), 224A(4), 226A and 246A

The following offences to the extent that they are offences under the law of England and Wales—1 Manslaughter.2 An offence under section 4 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (soliciting murder).3 An offence under section 18 of that Act (wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm).4 An offence under section 16 of the Firearms Act 1968 (possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life).5 An offence under section 17(1) of that Act (use of a firearm to resist arrest).6 An offence under section 18 of that Act (carrying a firearm with criminal intent).7 An offence of robbery under section 8 of the Theft Act 1968 where, at some time during the commission of the offence, the offender had in his possession a firearm or an imitation firearm within the meaning of the Firearms Act 1968.8 An offence under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (indecent images of children).9 An offence under section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (directing terrorist organisation).10 An offence under section 57 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (possession of article for terrorist purposes).11 An offence under section 59 of that Act (inciting terrorism overseas) if the offender is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.12 An offence under section 47 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (use etc of nuclear weapons).13 An offence under section 50 of that Act (assisting or inducing certain weapons-related acts overseas).14 An offence under section 113 of that Act (use of noxious substance or thing to cause harm or intimidate).
	15 An offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape).16 An offence under section 2 of that Act (assault by penetration).17 An offence under section 4 of that Act (causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent) if the offender is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.18 An offence under section 5 of that Act (rape of a child under 13).19 An offence under section 6 of that Act (assault of a child under 13 by penetration).20 An offence under section 7 of that Act (sexual assault of a child under 13).21 An offence under section 8 of that Act (causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity).22 An offence under section 9 of that Act (sexual activity with a child).23 An offence under section 10 of that Act (causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity).24 An offence under section 11 of that Act (engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child).25 An offence under section 12 of that Act (causing a child to watch a sexual act).26 An offence under section 14 of that Act (arranging or facilitating commission of a child sex offence).27 An offence under section 15 of that Act (meeting a child following sexual grooming etc).28 An offence under section 25 of that Act (sexual activity with a child family member) if the offender is aged 18 or over at the time of the offence.29 An offence under section 26 of that Act (inciting a child family member to engage in sexual activity) if the offender is aged 18 or over at the time of the offence.30 An offence under section 30 of that Act (sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder impeding choice) if the offender is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.31 An offence under section 31 of that Act (causing or inciting a person with a mental disorder to engage in sexual activity) if the offender is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.32 An offence under section 34 of that Act (inducement, threat or deception to procure sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder) if the offender is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.33 An offence under section 35 of that Act (causing a person with a mental disorder to engage in or agree to engage in sexual activity by inducement etc) if the offender is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.34 An offence under section 47 of that Act (paying for sexual services of a child) against a person aged under 16.35 An offence under section 48 of that Act (causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography).36 An offence under section 49 of that Act (controlling a child prostitute or a child involved in pornography).37 An offence under section 50 of that Act (arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography).38 An offence under section 62 of that Act (committing an offence with intent to commit a sexual offence) if the offender is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.39 An offence under section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult).40 An offence under section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006 (preparation of terrorist acts).41 An offence under section 9 of that Act (making or possession of radioactive device or materials).
	42 An offence under section 10 of that Act (misuse of radioactive devices or material and misuse and damage of facilities).43 An offence under section 11 of that Act (terrorist threats relating to radioactive devices, materials or facilities).44 (1) An attempt to commit an offence specified in the preceding paragraphs of this Part of this Schedule (“a listed offence”) or murder.
	(2) Conspiracy to commit a listed offence or murder.
	(3) Incitement to commit a listed offence or murder.
	(4) An offence under Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 in relation to which a listed offence or murder is the offence (or one of the offences) which the person intended or believed would be committed.
	(5) Aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of a listed offence.

Part 2
	 — 
	Further offences under the law of England and Wales listed for the purposes of sections 224A(4) and 226A

45 Murder.46 An offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (rape).47 An offence under section 5 of that Act (intercourse with a girl under 13).48 (1) An attempt to commit an offence specified in the preceding paragraphs of this Part of this Schedule (“a listed offence”).
	(2) Conspiracy to commit a listed offence.
	(3) Incitement to commit a listed offence.
	(4) An offence under Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 in relation to which a listed offence is the offence (or one of the offences) which the person intended or believed would be committed.
	(5) Aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of a listed offence.

Part 3
	 — 
	Offences under service law listed for the purposes of sections 224A(4) and 226A

49 An offence under section 70 of the Army Act 1955, section 70 of the Air Force Act 1955 or section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 as respects which the corresponding civil offence (within the meaning of the Act in question) is an offence specified in Part 1 or 2 of this Schedule.50 (1) An offence under section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 as respects which the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales (within the meaning given by that section) is an offence specified in Part 1 or 2 of this Schedule.
	(2) Section 48 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (attempts, conspiracy etc) applies for the purposes of this paragraph as if the reference in subsection (3)(b) of that section to any of the following provisions of that Act were a reference to this paragraph.

Part 4
	 — 
	Offences under the law of Scotland, Northern Ireland or a member State other than the United Kingdom listed for the purposes of sections 224A(4) and 226A

51 An offence for which the person was convicted in Scotland, Northern Ireland or a member State other than the United Kingdom and which, if done in England and Wales at the time of the conviction, would have constituted an offence specified in Part 1 or 2 of this Schedule.

Part 5
	 — 
	Interpretation

52 In this Schedule “imprisonment for life” includes custody for life and detention for life.’.—
	(Mr Djanogly.)
	Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 5
	 — 
	‘Life sentence for second listed offence: consequential and transitory provision
	 — 
	Part 1
	 — 
	Consequential provision

Mental Health Act 1983 (c.20)
	1 In section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (powers of courts to order hospital admission) in subsection (1A), after paragraph (b) insert—
	“(ba) under section 224A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003,”.
	Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c.33)
	2 In section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (reviews of sentencing) in subsection (2)(b)(iii) after “section” insert “224A,”.
	Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c.6)
	3 The Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 is amended as follows.4 In section 12 (absolute and conditional discharge) in subsection (1) before “225(2)” insert “224A,”.5 In section 130 (compensation orders against convicted persons) in subsection (2) before “225(2)” insert “224A,”.6 In section 146 (driving disqualification for any offence) in subsection (2) before “225(2)” insert “224A,”.7 In section 164 (interpretation) in subsection (3)(c) after “section” insert “224A,”.
	Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44)
	8 The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.9 In section 108 (offences committed by defendant when a child), at the end insert—
	“(4) Subsection (2) does not prevent the admission of evidence of a previous conviction for the purposes of establishing whether section 224A applies.”
	10 In section 142 (purposes of sentencing: offenders aged 18 and over) in subsection (2)(c)—
	(a) after “weapon)” insert “, under section 224A of this Act (life sentence for second listed offence for certain dangerous offenders)”, and
	(b) for “(dangerous offenders)” substitute “(imprisonment or detention for life for certain dangerous offenders)”.
	11 In section 150 (community sentence not available where sentence fixed by law etc) at the end of paragraph (ca) (but before the “or”) insert—
	“(cb) falls to be imposed under section 224A of this Act (life sentence for second listed offence for certain dangerous offenders),”.
	12 In section 152 (general restrictions on imposing discretionary custodial sentence) in subsection (1)(b) before “225(2)” insert “224A,”.13 In section 153 (length of discretionary custodial sentences: general provision) in subsection (1) before “225” insert “224A,”.14 In section 163 (general power of Crown Court to fine offender convicted on indictment) before “225(2)” insert “224A,”.15 Before section 224 insert—

“Interpretation”.

16 After section 224 (and before section 224A) insert—

“Life sentences”.

17 After section 226 insert—

“Extended sentences”.

18 Before section 231 insert—

“Supplementary”.

19 (1) Section 231 (appeals where convictions set aside) is amended as follows.
	(2) Before subsection (1) insert—
	“(A1) Subsection (2) applies where—
	(a) a sentence has been imposed on a person under section 224A,
	(b) a previous conviction of that person has been subsequently set aside on appeal, and
	(c) without that conviction, the previous offence condition in section 224A(4) would not have been met.”
	(3) In subsection (1) for “This section” substitute “Subsection (2) also”.
	(4) After subsection (2) insert—
	“(3) Subsection (4) applies where—
	(a) a sentence has been imposed on a person under section 224A,
	(b) a previous sentence imposed on that person has been subsequently modified on appeal, and
	(c) taking account of that modification, the previous offence condition in section 224A(4) would not have been met.
	(4) Notwithstanding anything in section 18 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, notice of appeal against the sentence mentioned in subsection (3)(a) may be given at any time within 28 days from the date on which the previous sentence was modified.”
	20 After section 232 insert—
	“232A Certificates of conviction
	(none) Where—
	(a) on any date after the commencement of Schedule 15B a person is convicted in England and Wales of an offence listed in that Schedule, and
	(b) the court by or before which the person is so convicted states in open court that the person has been convicted of such an offence on that date, and
	(c) that court subsequently certifies that fact,
	that certificate is evidence, for the purposes of section 224A, that the person was convicted of such an offence on that date.”
	21 In section 305(4) (interpretation of Part 12) after paragraph (ba) insert—
	“(bb) a sentence falls to be imposed under section 224A if the court is obliged to pass a sentence of imprisonment for life under that section,”.
	Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (c.25)
	22 In section 125(6) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (sentencing guidelines: duty of court) after paragraph (d) insert—
	“(da) section 224A of that Act (life sentence for second listed offence for certain dangerous offenders);”.

Part 2
	 — 
	Transitory provision

23 (1) In relation to any time before the coming into force of section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (abolition of sentences of detention in a young offender institution, custody for life etc), Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (sentencing) has effect with the following modifications.
	(2) In section 224A (life sentence for second listed offence)—
	(a) in subsection (2), after “imprisonment for life” insert “or, in the case of a person aged at least 18 but under 21, custody for life”, and
	(b) in subsection (3), after “more” insert “or, if the person is aged at least 18 but under 21, a sentence of detention in a young offender institution for such a period”.’.—(Mr Djanogly.)
	Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 6
	 — 
	‘New extended sentences: consequential and transitory provision
	 — 
	Part 1
	 — 
	Consequential provision

Juries Act 1974 (c.23)
	1 In Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Juries Act 1974 (persons disqualified from jury service) in paragraph 6(d), before “227” insert “226A, 226B,”.
	Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (c.53)
	2 In section 5 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (sentences excluded from rehabilitation under that Act) in subsection (1)(f), before “227” insert “226A, 226B,”.
	Criminal Justice Act 1982 (c.48)
	3 In section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (early release of prisoners) in subsection (1)(a), before “227” insert “226A or”.
	Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c.53)
	4 In section 35A of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (extension of disqualification where custodial sentence imposed as well as driving disqualification) in subsection (4) after paragraph (d) insert—
	“(da) where section 226A of that Act (extended sentence for certain violent or sexual offences: persons 18 or over) applies in relation to the custodial sentence, a period equal to two-thirds of the term imposed pursuant to section 226A(5)(a) of that Act after that term has been reduced by any relevant discount;
	(db) where section 226B of that Act (extended sentence for certain violent or sexual offences: persons under 18) applies in relation to the custodial sentence, a period equal to two-thirds of the term imposed pursuant to section 226B(3)(a) of that Act after that term has been reduced by any relevant discount;”.
	Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c.6)
	5 The Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 is amended as follows.6 In section 76 (meaning of “custodial sentence”) in subsection (1)(bc) after “section” insert “226B or”.7 (1) Section 99 (conversion of sentence of detention to sentence of imprisonment) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (3), omit the words from “; and” to the end.
	(3) After that subsection insert—
	“(3A) Where the Secretary of State gives a direction under subsection (1) above in relation to an offender serving an extended sentence of detention imposed under Chapter 5 of Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act—
	(a) if the sentence was imposed under section 226B of that Act, the offender shall be treated as if the offender had been sentenced under section 226A of that Act, and
	(b) if the sentence was imposed under section 228 of that Act, the offender shall be treated as if the offender had been sentenced under section 227 of that Act.”
	(4) In subsection (5)(c), after “section” insert “226B or”.
	8 In section 100 (offenders under 18: detention and training orders) in subsection (1) after “226” insert “, 226B”.9 In section 106A(1) (interaction of detention and training orders with sentences of detention), in paragraph (b) of the definition of “sentence of detention”, after “section” insert “226B or”.
	Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (c.43)
	10 The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 is amended as follows.11 In section 62 (release on licence etc: conditions as to monitoring) in subsection (5)(f), after “226” insert “, 226B”.12 In section 64 (release on licence: drug testing requirements) in subsection (5)(f), after “226” insert “, 226B”.
	Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c.42)
	13 In section 131 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (young offenders: application), in paragraph (l), before “228” insert “226B or”.
	Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44)
	14 The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.15 In section 153 (length of discretionary custodial sentences: general provision) in subsection (2) before “227(2)” insert “226A(4), 226B(2)”.16 In section 156 (pre-sentence reports and other requirements) in subsection (3)(a) after “226(1)(b),” insert “section 226A(1)(b), section 226B(1)(b)”.17 In section 235 (detention under sections 226 and 228) after “226” insert “, 226B”.18 In the heading of that section after “226” insert “, 226B”.19 In section 327 (arrangements for assessing etc risks posed by certain offenders: interpretation) in subsection (3)(b)(vi) after “section” insert “226B or”.
	Offender Management Act 2007 (c.21)
	20 (1) Section 28 of the Offender Management Act 2007 (application of polygraph conditions for certain offenders released on licence) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (3)(a) after “section” insert “226A or”.
	(3) In subsection (3)(f) after “226” insert “, 226B”.

Part 2
	 — 
	Transitory provision

21 (1) In relation to any time before the coming into force of section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (abolition of sentences of detention in a young offender institution, custody for life etc), Chapter 5 of Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (sentencing: dangerous offenders) has effect with the modifications in sub-paragraphs (2) and (3).
	(2) In section 226A (extended sentence for certain violent or sexual offences: persons 18 or over), at the end insert—
	“(12) In the case of a person aged at least 18 but under 21, this section has effect as if—
	(a) the reference in subsection (1)(c) to imprisonment for life were to custody for life, and
	(b) other references to imprisonment (including in the expression “extended sentence of imprisonment”) were to detention in a young offender institution.”
	(3) In section 226B (mandatory extended sentence for certain violent or sexual offences: persons under 18), in subsection (7), for “18” substitute “21”.
	22 (1) In relation to any time before the repeal of section 30 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (protection of children: supplemental) by Schedule 10 to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, that section has effect with the modification in sub-paragraph (2).
	(2) In subsection (1), in paragraph (dd) of the definition of “qualifying sentence”, after “226” insert “, 226B”.’.—(Mr Djanogly.)
	Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 7
	 — 
	‘Release of new extended sentence prisoners: consequential provision

1 Chapter 6 of Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (sentencing: release and recall) (as amended by Chapter 4 of Part 3 of this Act) is amended as follows.2 In section 237 (meaning of “fixed-term prisoner” etc), in subsection (1)(b), before “228” insert “226B”.3 In section 238 (power of court to recommend licence conditions), in subsection (4), after “Sentencing Act” insert “or section 226B”.4 In section 240ZA (time remanded in custody to count as time served), in subsection (12)—
	(a) in paragraph (a), after “or section” insert “226B or”, and
	(b) in paragraph (b), after “or section” insert “226A or”.
	5 (1) Section 250 (licence conditions) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (4)—
	(a) before “227” insert “226A or”, and
	(b) before “228” insert “226B or”.
	(3) After subsection (5) insert—
	“(5A) In respect of a prisoner serving an extended sentence imposed under section 226A or 226B whose release is directed by the Board under section 246A(5), a licence under—
	(a) section 246A(5) (initial release), or
	(b) section 255C (release after recall),
	may not include conditions referred to in subsection (4)(b)(ii) unless the Board directs the Secretary of State to include them.”
	6 In section 255A (further release after recall), in subsection (7)(a) (meaning of “extended sentence prisoner”) after “section” insert “226A, 226B,”.7 (1) Section 260 (early removal of prisoners liable to removal from UK) is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection (2) insert—
	“(2A) If a fixed-term prisoner serving an extended sentence imposed under section 226A or 226B—
	(a) is liable to removal from the United Kingdom, and
	(b) has not been removed from prison under this section during the period mentioned in subsection (1),
	the Secretary of State may remove the prisoner from prison under this section at any time after the end of that period.
	(2B) Subsection (2A) applies whether or not the Parole Board has directed the prisoner’s release under section 246A.”
	(3) In subsection (5), after “244” (but before “, 247”) insert “, 246A”.
	(4) In subsection (7), before paragraph (a) insert—
	“(za) in relation to a prisoner serving an extended sentence imposed under section 226A or 226B, has the meaning given by paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition in section 246A(8);”.
	8 (1) Section 261 (re-entry to UK of offender removed early) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (5)(b) for “or 244” substitute “, 244 or 246A”.
	(3) In subsection (6), in the definition of “requisite custodial period”, before paragraph (a) insert—
	“(za) in relation to a prisoner serving an extended sentence imposed under section 226A or 226B, has the meaning given by paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition in section 246A(8);”.
	9 In section 263 (concurrent terms), in subsection (4), before “228” insert “226B or”.10 (1) Section 264 (consecutive terms) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (6)(a) (definition of “custodial period”), before sub-paragraph (i) insert—
	(zi) in relation to an extended sentence imposed under section 226A or 226B, means two-thirds of the appropriate custodial term determined by the court under that section,”.
	(3) In subsection (7) before “228” insert “226B or”.
	11 In section 265 (restriction on consecutive sentences for released prisoners), in subsection (2), before “228” insert “226B or”.’.—
	(Mr Djanogly.)
	Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 18
	 — 
	Rules against referral fees

‘(1) A regulated person is in breach of this section if—
	(a) the regulated person refers prescribed legal business to another person and is paid or has been paid for the referral, or
	(b) prescribed legal business is referred to the regulated person, and the regulated person pays or has paid for the referral.
	(2) A regulated person is also in breach of this section if in providing legal services in the course of prescribed legal business the regulated person—
	(a) arranges for another person to provide services to the client, and
	(b) is paid or has been paid for making the arrangement.
	(3) Section [Regulators and regulated persons] defines “regulated person”.
	(4) “Prescribed legal business” means business that involves the provision of legal services to a client, where—
	(a) the legal services relate to a claim or potential claim for damages for personal injury or death, or
	(b) the business is of a description specified in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor.
	(5) There is a referral of prescribed legal business if—
	(a) a person provides information to another,
	(b) it is information that a provider of legal services would need to make an offer to the client to provide relevant services, and
	(c) the person providing the information is not the client;
	and “relevant services” means any of the legal services that the business involves.
	(6) “Legal services” means services provided by a person which consist of or include legal activities (within the meaning of the Legal Services Act 2007) carried on by or on behalf of that person; and a provider of legal services is a person authorised to carry on a reserved legal activity within the meaning of that Act.
	(7) “Client”—
	(a) where subsection (4)(a) applies, means the person who makes or would made the claim;
	(b) where subsection (4)(b) applies, has the meaning given by the regulations.
	(8) Payment includes any form of consideration (but does not include the provision of hospitality that is reasonable in the circumstances).’.—(Mr Djanogly.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Jonathan Djanogly: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a),after first ‘paid’ in (1)(a), insert
	‘will be paid, has made an agreement to be paid,’.
	Amendment (b),after ‘pays’ in (1)(b), insert
	‘will pay, has made an agreement to pay’.
	Amendment (c),after first ‘paid’ in (2)(b), insert
	‘will be paid, has made an agreement to be paid,’.
	Amendment (e),at end of (4)(b), insert—
	‘(2A) A breach of the provisions of this section shall be an offence, punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or on indictment for a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years, or a fine, or both.’.
	Government new clause 19—Effect of the rules against referral fees—
	‘(1) The relevant regulator must ensure that it has appropriate arrangements for monitoring and enforcing the restrictions imposed on regulated persons by section [Rules against referral fees].
	(2) A regulator may make rules for the purposes of subsection (1).
	(3) The rules may in particular provide for the relevant regulator to exercise in relation to anything done in breach of that section any powers (subject to subsections (5) and (6)) that the regulator would have in relation to anything done by the regulated person in breach of another restriction.
	(4) Where the relevant regulator is the Financial Services Authority, section [Regulation by the FSA] applies instead of subsections (1) to (3) (and (7) to (9)).
	(5) A breach of section [Rules against referral fees]—
	(a) does not make a person guilty of an offence, and
	(b) does not give rise to a right of action for breach of statutory duty.
	(6) A breach of section [Rules against referral fees] does not make anything void or unenforceable, but a contract to make or pay for a referral or arrangement in breach of that section is unenforceable.
	(7) Subsection (8) applies in a case where—
	(a) a referral of prescribed legal business has been made by or to a regulated person, or
	(b) a regulated person has made an arrangement as mentioned in section [Rules against referral fees](2)(a),
	and it appears to the regulator that a payment made to or by the regulated person may be a payment for the referral or for making the arrangement (a “referral fee”).
	(8) Rules under subsection (2) may provide for the payment to be treated as a referral fee unless the regulated person shows that the payment was made—
	(a) as consideration for the provision of services, or
	(b) for another reason,
	and not as a referral fee.
	(9) For the purposes of provision made by virtue of subsection (8) a payment that would otherwise be regarded as consideration for the provision of services of any description may be treated as a referral fee if it exceeds the amount specified in relation to services of that description in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor.’.
	Amendment (a) to new clause 19,leave out subsection 5.
	Amendment (b),leave out from ‘services’ in (8)(a) to end of paragraph (b) and insert
	‘but only where the consideration was proportionate and reasonable in the circumstances.’.
	Government new clause 20—Regulation by the FSA.
	Government new clause 21—Regulators and regulated persons.
	Government new clause 22—Referral fees: regulations.
	Government amendment 139.

Jonathan Djanogly: New clauses 18 to 22 seek to prohibit the payment and receipt of referral fees in personal injury cases by regulated persons, namely solicitors, barristers, claim management companies and insurers.
	I pay tribute at the outset to the work of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) in pursuing the case for a ban on referral fees. I know that there are some differences between us about the detail of how we should implement the ban—we will come to his amendments in due course—but those differences of detail should not obscure our agreement in principle on tackling this important issue. I acknowledge his efforts in this regard.
	I must also mention the consistent campaign by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) as Chair of the Justice Committee, who has also been a very keen supporter of the ban. I note that last week his Committee formally welcomed our commitment to the ban, which will be implemented by these clauses. I should also acknowledge the work of the Transport Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), before whom I was privileged to appear last month.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Justice announced the Government’s intention to ban the payment and receipt of referral fees in personal injury cases by way of a written ministerial statement to the House on 9 September 2011.
	I strongly believe that the current arrangements under which lawyers and others are able to pay and receive fees for referring work have led to both higher costs and the growth of an industry that pursues claimants for profit. By introducing the new clause, the Government are taking decisive and much needed action to remove these incentives.
	Right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that Lord Justice Jackson recommended that referral fees should be banned as part of his comprehensive package of recommendations to make the costs of the civil litigation more proportionate and this recommendation was echoed by Lord Young in his report “Common Sense Common Safety”. The Bill already includes provisions to implement the other key elements of those recommendations. The referral fees ban under our new clause will complement the wider Jackson reform already in the Bill by further reducing the costs of personal injury litigation and deterring frivolous or unnecessary claims from being pursued in the courts.
	The new clause creates a regulatory offence for any breach of the prohibition. It will be for the appropriate regulators, for example the Law Society, the Financial Services Authority or the claims management regulator, to enforce the prohibition. The regulators will also be responsible for taking appropriate action against regulated persons for any breaches. We have thought carefully about how to ensure that all the main players, including insurers, are captured by the ban, which is why there is a separate clause, new clause 20, giving the Treasury powers to make regulations allowing the FSA to enforce the ban under its existing regulatory powers.
	There have been calls from some people, but not most people, for the payment and receipt of referral fees to be made a criminal offence. Not least among those who have called for that is the right hon. Member for Blackburn, who has tabled amendment (e) to that effect. We considered
	the matter carefully but believe that creating a criminal offence would be a very blunt instrument in this case. One would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that consideration had changed hands for the referral of a potential claimant, but the grounds for determining whether something was or was not a referral fee could be blurred. It would be very difficult to convict in many cases on the basis of the complexity of those arrangements. That is why we consider a regulatory offence to be more appropriate, whereby the principle of what is happening can be looked at by the regulator and a view can be taken.
	I am conscious that a criminal offence would impose additional costs on the police and the courts in investigating and enforcing a ban. I believe that a regulatory prohibition covering all the main players in the sector, including lawyers, claims management companies and insurers, is the most appropriate and effective response to the issue. I am confident that the industry regulators are best placed to investigate and enforce the regulatory ban.

Alan Beith: As my hon. Friend has indicated, I strongly support the action he is taking, but is it not the case that in many of those circumstances a criminal offence may well have been committed by way of a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998? The problem then is that custodial sentences are not available for someone who is doing that on a large scale and making a great deal of money by releasing personal information and committing a criminal offence.

Jonathan Djanogly: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. It is not one that is covered by the Bill, but it is something that the Government are looking into, and I hope that there will be further developments on that in due course.

Jack Straw: I thank the Minister for the generous compliment he paid me, for which I am most grateful. There are plenty of situations relating to financial institutions in the widest sense when conduct might be the subject of a regulatory breach enforced by the regulators, but in more severe cases it could also be a criminal offence. It is a matter of belt and braces. Frankly, I do not understand why he is suggesting that those are alternatives when one complements the other.

Jonathan Djanogly: The reason is that criminalisation would be too blunt an instrument. If we take the example of the straight payment of a fee for a referral, I can see how straight criminalisation would work, but we should appreciate that when that was last banned in 2004 it was a weak provision through which a coach and horses could be driven. What if an insurance company provides insurance to a solicitor in payment for referrals, rather than a straight fee? What if a trade union gives its cheap work to a firm of solicitors in consideration for the solicitors getting its better work? What if a claims management company provides a variety of services to a solicitor in payment for a referral? The point I am making is that the circumstances could be very varied and complex and the straight criminal option would not be appropriate. It would be the principle that counts and it would have to be a regulator that looks to the principle.
	We are primarily concerned with removing incentives under the current system with regard to personal injury claims, which is why we are banning referral fees in that area. However, the Lord Chancellor may in future extend by regulation the prohibition on referral fees to other types of claim and legal services and other providers of legal services should the need arise and if the case is made for such an extension.

Kate Green: Is the Minister not concerned that that might introduce an element of uncertainty? Although I note what he says about the possibility of extending the provisions to other structures in future, is he not aware that alternative business structures will now be set up by large companies to get around the provisions? How will he address that?

Jonathan Djanogly: Alternative business structures will be set up by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, probably before or just after the end of this year, so the hon. Lady makes an important point. At that stage, claims management companies will be able to purchase solicitors, and vice versa, which means that it would indeed be possible, as we discussed in the Transport Committee, for a claims management company to own a solicitor and effectively act as the advertising arm of a firm of solicitors. However, the important difference is that the claims management companies will then be regulated by the SRA, which will give consumers a significant amount of comfort.
	Referral fees are one of the symptoms of the compensation culture in this country. The Government are determined to put an end to them while at the same time addressing the underlying cause of recoverability of no win, no fee success fees.

Andy Slaughter: Following what my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Justice said earlier this afternoon, I rise to discuss proposals that have not been given due scrutiny in Parliament. We are all aware that the Government were bounced into taking action on referral fees only by the sustained campaigning by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). In their haste to cover up their inaction and disregard of the abuses of the insurance industry, they have failed to consult on their proposals, which are incompetent, ineffective and will lead to problems further down the line. Indeed, it was reported this week that a judicial review has already been launched citing that lack of consultation.
	Referral fees are paid by one party to another in exchange for what are essentially sale leads. They are analogous to brokers’ fees, commission for salespeople, marketing agreements or, in the most basic sense, advertising, because each of these represents part of the cost of sales. Every non-monopolistic industry has a cost of sales. Let me take the example of the insurance industry, an industry with which the Minister has more than a passing familiarity. Admiral is the UK’s leading specialist motor insurance company. Last year it received net insurance premium revenue of £288 million, but its total net revenue was £639 million, part of which was made with referral fees. It spent £151 million on the acquisition of insurance contracts and other marketing costs, including brokers’ costs, paying insurance websites and expensive advertising. Those costs drive up premium
	costs and the desire to make profit also drives up premium prices—Admiral made £283 million in profit last year on its net revenue of £639 million. That is how it works in the insurance industry.
	It works in a similar way when law firms pay independent brokers, some of which are known as claims management companies, another area with which the Minister has more than a passing familiarity. They will pay referral fees in order to get leads for their practice. The lawyers often do this because, frankly, they are not very good at sales, marketing or advertising. However, the problems arise in the behaviour that that encourages. Although there are reputable and decent claims management companies out there that bring together those who want help with those who can provide it, there are also many claims farmers, often based overseas, that abuse the system, send unsolicited spam to people’s e-mail accounts and mobile phones and abuse their data.
	It is right to deal with people who act in such a way, but the claims management regulator, which until a few weeks ago was the Minister, but which I understand is now the Secretary of State, has proven singularly unable to do so. An internal review of claims management regulation from the Ministry of Justice, dated 25 October 2011—just last week—states:
	“It is evident that many of the more objectionable practices of Claims Management Companies such as cold calling in person, unauthorised marketing in hospitals and using exaggerated marketing claims have been reined in as a result of action taken under CMR.”
	Nothing could make clearer what delusions have set in with claims management regulated by the Minister, because we all know from personal experience that the opposite is true and that such abuse is still out there at large and, if anything, is increasing. Our constituents are harassed by claims farmers, and their objectionable messages, but the Department that he has mismanaged for the past year and a half believes it is doing an excellent job. That is why we must take corrective action.

Kevan Jones: I note what my hon. Friend is saying about the claims regulatory authority, but my experience at the tail end of the miners compensation scheme was that it was effective in driving out of the industry some of the more unscrupulous claims management companies, which were often just front companies that wound up as soon as they had passed the claims on. I caution my hon. Friend not to be too harsh on it.

Andy Slaughter: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. I am sure that some companies have been driven out of business, but the everyday experience of hon. Members, and certainly of our constituents, is that the industry is not properly regulated, which is why corrective action must be taken. However, the proposals in the Government’s new clauses are, I fear, insufficient. They are riddled with inconsistencies and loopholes, which is another symptom of the haste with which they were prepared.
	I will deal with the point that the Minister dealt with. New clause 19(8) states that a payment is
	“to be treated as a referral fee unless”
	it can be shown
	“that the payment was made…as consideration for the provision of services, or…for another reason”.
	The Minister’s impact assessment explains what that means. Claims management companies may adapt their business models so that they are not reliant on referral fees paid by lawyers, or they may move into alternative types of business such as marketing or advertising. That is staggering to those of us who recognise that it is precisely that marketing and advertising, whether on daytime TV adverts or via spam messages, that lead to perceptions of a compensation culture.
	What is the point of the new clauses? The truth is that they are an afterthought to a package of changes in the Bill, some of which we will debate tomorrow, that have far more bite but a different purpose. The changes to conditional fee agreements mean that losing defendants—wrongdoers—and their insurers will benefit at the expense of winning claimants—victims—and that is the real objective of the Government’s legislation. Tomorrow, we will seek to overturn those provisions.
	As Bob and Sally Dowler have told us; as the lawyers that brought Trafigura to justice have told us; as victims of asbestosis, who have been fighting insurers that simply do want to pay out to hard-working and long-suffering people; as those who have been unfairly dismissed or subject to harassment in the workplace have told us; and as Christopher Jeffries, who was persecuted by the media last Christmas, as he wrote in The Guardian this very day, has told us, the changes are unacceptable. The Government’s proposed changes, which they had thought about and on which they had taken instructions from the insurance industry, are in the Bill, but very little thought has gone into the new clauses before us today, and none would have gone into them had it not been for my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn.
	In summary, we believe that there is merit in a ban on referral fees as part of a package to stop the abuses that I have talked about. That is why I tabled amendments not just to clamp down on those fees, but to make the payment and solicitation of referral fees in road traffic accident personal injury cases a criminal offence. My right hon. Friend has tabled amendments to new clause 18, and I hope that he will press them to a vote. If he does so, I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will join him in the Lobby if the Government still refuse to accept the criminalisation of referral fees.
	We sought to make unsolicited text messages and phone calls regarding personal injuries a criminal offence. We would have strengthened the rules against the sale of personal data. We would have restricted whiplash claims by placing a lower limit on the speed at which a vehicle must be travelling before damages may be paid. We would have outlawed third-party capture, another dirty secret of the insurance industry. I freely acknowledge that we plagiarised some of that from my right hon. Friend’s private Member’s Bill.
	If the Government had had the courage of the conviction in the Minister’s speeches earlier in the year, we would have got to the heart of the perception of a compensation culture. In doing so, we would have done what the Government are now failing to do. The new clause alone will have little effect. We believe that it deserves further scrutiny, and we hope that amendments in another place will toughen it up, if that does not happen tonight. We also hope that amendments to make these practices criminal offences will be accepted. We therefore have no intention of voting against the new clauses; we simply regard them as not going far enough.
	The Minister’s incompetence in getting to grips with claims farmers who engage in unscrupulous practices and his Department’s failure even to recognise the scale of their failure to regulate effectively have got us here. These are symptoms not of a litigation culture, as he would have us believe, and of the rhetoric that goes along with the cuts in legal aid to the poorest, as well the neutering of no win, no fee agreements which will affect almost everyone except the super-rich and will prevent access to justice, but of regulatory incompetence by the Minister’s Department. Indeed, he has now surrendered responsibility for that regulation.
	I commend my right hon. Friend’s amendments to the House. We accept the new clauses as far as they go, but it is about time the Government stopped using their rhetoric as a mask for preventing victims from obtaining justice and used it to ensure that the abuses that we all put up with day to day from fraudulent and criminal practices are stamped out.

Tom Brake: I shall be brief. I welcome the Government’s action to address referral fees. There is no doubt that consumers have paid a significant price. I hope that we can clamp down heavily on other things, such as unsolicited text messages and spam, which we have all experienced, through other measures such as those on data protection.
	I would like the Minister to deal with just one point. The industry has been pressing for these changes, and consumers in particular want to understand what guarantees, if any, they will have that when the changes have taken effect they will see a difference in the prices they pay for services.

Jack Straw: As a preliminary, I wish to draw the House’s attention to the fact that against my name on the amendments relating to referral fees there is an R, which indicates that I have a declarable interest. It arises from three engagements that I undertook for fees on matters relating to referral fees and the motor insurance industry generally. They were on 28 September, 12 October, and earlier today. In respect of the first two, I have made a declaration to the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests, who told me that because I have not yet received payment the time for these is not yet running. The declaration for my engagement this morning will be made tomorrow.
	I tabled amendments to new clauses 18 and 19 and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) indicated, in the absence of a sudden Pauline conversion from the Government Front Bench between now and when the question is put, I shall press amendment (e) to new clause 18 to a vote.
	According to the AA, over the year to March 2011, there has been a 40% increase in motor insurance premiums. In many areas of the country, mine included, although it is by no means the worst, the increase has been even higher. As a number of colleagues of all parties have pointed out, that has very severe social consequences.
	May I say that I am extremely grateful for the wide support that my Motor Insurance Regulation Bill has had throughout the Chamber? Motor insurance is the only insurance affecting an individual that is compulsory,
	and in certain areas and for certain categories, particularly younger drivers, premiums are now so high as to place motor insurance out of reach altogether. A driving licence is often a necessary qualification for taking a job. In any case, people in areas that are not blessed with a high level of public transport, which means most places outside inner urban areas, need a motor vehicle to go about their business. The increase in premiums, and the fact that they are much higher in some areas than others, is leading to some people not being able to work or move around.
	The increase is also unquestionably leading to an increase in criminality, both through people going around uninsured and, increasingly, through people deciding to borrow a friend’s address with a lower-premium postcode. People also fail to disclose relevant information about themselves, to enable them to become insured. It cannot serve any public purpose that we have ended up with such a dysfunctional system.
	I readily concede that that has happened because of a nexus of factors going back a number of years. The operation of the conditional fee system was introduced in the Access to Justice Act 1999 for good a reason: it was thought that it would improve access to justice. To some extent that has certainly been true, but as we all know, it has had the unintended consequence of generally —I am not talking the Trafigura case or one or two others—creating an imbalance in the equality of arms between parties on either side of a legal action. It has gratuitously encouraged the so-called compensation culture.
	That, in turn, has been compounded by the costs of the road traffic accident electronic portal being too high. In a recent statement, the Minister said that the figure that was introduced when I was Secretary of State had been agreed in the Civil Justice Council. It was agreed to by both sides, which was why I did not interfere with it. I believe there is now widespread agreement that the current fee, of at least £1,200 for claims under £10,000, is at least twice as high as it should be. It is leading to lawyers advertising as two firms at the end of my street in Blackburn do: they have great banners across their windows saying, “Bring your claim in here, we’ll pay you up to £650 in cash for it.” They can do that and still make a profit out of the £1,200, because the actual costs of running the portal are about £100.
	Claims for whiplash, which I have described as an invention of the human imagination, undiagnosable except by dodgy doctors employed by claims management companies, have got completely out of control. The level of whiplash claims is not related to the level of accidents or physical injuries. Accidents are reducing, as is the possibility of being injured in an accident, because cars and road engineering are much safer. It is related principally to the density of claims management companies operating in a particular area. The evidence of that is incontrovertible.
	I concede to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) that the regulators have acted properly on claims management companies in some ways, but the regulatory system established under the Compensation Act 2006, during our Administration, has not had sufficient resources to control the trebling in the number of claims management companies that has taken place in recent years.
	Another change that took place was in the 2004 solicitors conduct rules, which allowed solicitors to pay referral fees that were previously banned. I will come back to that point when we deal with the enforcement of a ban on referral fees.

Alan Beith: I very much welcome all the effort that the right hon. Gentleman has put into this matter. I hope that in talking about referral fees, he will recognise that although he has devoted a lot of his effort to motor insurance, the same problems affect the cost to consumers in numerous other areas, such as employment law, conveyancing and divorce—all areas in which quite large sums change hands.

Jack Straw: I absolutely agree. I began this journey because of constituents’ concerns about motor insurance, and my private Member’s Bill specifically concentrates on that, but I accept entirely what the right hon. Gentleman has been saying for such a long time and what his Justice Committee said in the report that it published two weeks ago—that the ban on referral fees must be extended beyond personal injury cases.

Jonathan Evans: I am anxious for the right hon. Gentleman to reflect on his point about the change in the solicitors rules in 2004. It is important that the House considers the fact that up until that time, referral fees were banned by the Law Society. It was the intervention of the Office of Fair Trading that resulted in the Law Society changing that rule and recommending the creation of a marketplace, which he has rightly described as later becoming a full-scale scam.

Jack Straw: I said earlier today outside the House that I believe the reason why the OFT has decided rather late in the day to hold an investigation into market conditions in the motor insurance industry is that it is deeply embarrassed by the position that it took in 2004. In no sense could it be said that referral fees encourage fair trading. They are essentially a fraud on the consumer. Lord Justice Jackson, in his magisterial report, completely demolished the OFT’s case in favour of referral fees.
	The other body that should examine its processes is the Legal Services Board. I accept readily the reason why the Secretary of State felt obliged to wait for its consideration of referral fees, but its consumer panel released the most extraordinary report stating that referral fees worked in the public interest. If we examine the basis of its research, we find that a third of the people whom it surveyed had received compensation for things like whiplash.
	On any objective consumer evidence, and there is plenty of it, it is perfectly plain that the public collectively do not like what they are learning about how the wider insurance industry operates. They reckon they are being defrauded, and that is absolutely true. In motor insurance, for example, a conservative estimate is that at least £2 billion of the total premium income of £9 billion is additional costs caused by the merry-go-round of referral fees.

Kevan Jones: My right hon. Friend is correct that in 2004, referral fees were put on a legal footing. However, many years before that it was quite clear that referral
	fees were being paid in various guises. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and I raised the scandal that was going on in the miners’ compensation scheme. When we were arguing for that practice to be banned, the Government of the time did not do a great deal about it.

Jack Straw: The Government should have done, and as I have sometimes said in respect of that period, my alibi is that I was abroad. I am the last to suggest that the problem has been created by the current Government. I accept that although the Labour Government did many wonderful things, the consequence of a number of things, some of which we introduced and some of which, such as the OFT report, were forced on us, has been the creation of a dysfunctional system.

Kevan Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way again on that point?

Jack Straw: Very briefly, but others wish to speak.

Kevan Jones: The fact that this has become an issue for middle England is quite ironic, but I am angry that when my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw and I raised it in respect of poor mining communities, people did not think it was a great priority. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is ironic that if we had tackled the problem at that time, the scandals in the motor industry that he has outlined would have been put to bed years ago?

Jack Straw: That might be so—it is good to know that my constituency is representative of middle England.
	Similarly unacceptable practices take place in motor repairs. In bottom-line referrals, accident management companies require repairers to give them a discount of up to 25%. The repairers then increase their prices to take account of that bottom-line referral fee. Royal and Sun Alliance outrageously practised a type of subrogation whereby it set up an internal subsidiary, which contracted repairers for, say, £1,000 for a repair, and then added 25%, which was charged to the main company—RSA Ltd—which then charged the at-fault insurer. Product mandating is another unacceptable practice. Deals are struck with, for example, paint manufacturers, and repair companies are required to use specific brands of paint. That has led to a 67% increase in the cost of paint since 2003.
	We must act on all those matters, and I hope the Minister will say briefly what will happen on the RTA portal if he gets the chance. I know that he has indicated that he hopes to take action, but is he sympathetic to what I suggest in respect of whiplash and many other matters?
	I come now to the issue between the Minister and me. I welcome new clause 18, and I am grateful to the Secretary of State and the Minister for introducing it. However, for my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) and I, there are two issues. First, in my judgment, the breadth of the ban must go wider than personal injury claims. It could be excluded in one or two discrete areas, but in the generality of cases, as the right hon. Gentleman said—he has a great deal of experience—abuse also happens elsewhere.
	Secondly, on the question of whether there should be a criminal offence, I noted what the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham said about what happened before 2004, and in a sense, they have made my point. My understanding is that the prohibition on solicitors charging referral fees was in the solicitors conduct rules and that it was not a criminal offence. Those rules changed; it was not that a criminal offence was abolished. I am glad that the Secretary of State proposes to make greater use of the regulatory authorities, and I would not for a moment suggest that that is unnecessary, because it is very necessary. However—this is where, with respect, I found his argument least convincing—there are many other areas of regulation, including, for example, of financial institutions, when conduct that is in clear breach of regulations leads to both a fine or penalty by civil regulatory authorities and a criminal offence. That is particularly true given the vicarious liability requirements imposed by section 7 and others of the Bribery Act 2011.
	I applaud what the Secretary of State is doing as far as it goes, but for the life of me, I simply do not understand why, given that he recognises the inadequacy of the 2004 regulatory system and many other things, he does not back that with the criminal law.

Stephen Phillips: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
	Given the right hon. Gentleman’s wide experience, can he detect any pattern in relation to those matters where an action by a regulated body constitutes something that could lead both to regulatory action by the regulator and to criminal sanction under the statutes? If so, it would be interesting to know which side of the line the new clause and the matters to which it refers lie.

Jack Straw: The hon. and learned Gentlemen may have noticed that I need to research that point, but I have in the back of my mind a number of cases where breaches of regulations are dealt with both by the regulator and in criminal proceedings. He is experienced in the law and will know that plenty of criminal offences are also civil wrongs of some kind in common law or by regulations.

Alan Beith: The right hon. Gentleman has an arguable case on the merits of a back-up criminal offence, but will he concede that the system proposed by the Government can be made to work, because it combines the regulatory framework with the criminal offence behind it, particularly if there is a custodial sentence? The data protection offence, which lies behind the Government’s proposal, is already a criminal offence.

Jack Straw: Christopher Graham, the distinguished Information Commissioner, made the point that one reason why the penalty for breach of section 55 of the Data Protection Act needs to be increased—as it is by sections 77 and 78 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 to a maximum of two years imprisonment or an unlimited fine—is to send a message to people in those industries that they could end up in prison if they go in for an egregious breach. Of course, other breaches
	of data protection rules could mean that an organisation loses its licence, but in extremis, we need criminal proceedings for a criminal offence.
	My view is that the same must apply in respect of breaches of the law banning referral fees. My amendment (e) would produce exactly the same penalty—it is entirely proportionate—as applies under sections 77 and 78 of the 2008 Act, which I hope the Government bring into force quickly given that they are already on the statute book. With that, and because I know that many others wish to speak, I thank Members on both sides of the House for the support that they have given to my campaign, and commend the amendment to the House.

Damian Hinds: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who put his case so comprehensively and convincingly.
	I should like to speak briefly in support of the Government’s position and to ask a question of clarification. Clearly, referral fees and how they work have contributed enormously to the insurance costs of people in Blackburn, East Hampshire, middle England—wherever that is—and everywhere else, and change is needed. We had a strange mini-debate in the Public Bill Committee evidence-taking session on whether there was a compensation culture in this country. Some Opposition Members suggested that there was not and cited the noble Lord Young of Graffham in defence of their case, which is rather a tricky one to argue. Anyone who has received those annoying automated phone calls and text messages, or who has even a glancing familiarity with daytime television, can say that it is intuitive and self-evident that there is a compensation culture.
	I understand that one of the original reasons for introducing referral fees was to allow an online market to develop—it was said that that would be a good thing because it might increase competition and access to justice. I shall come back to the online market element in a moment, but the claim that referral fees improve access to justice is at best grossly exaggerated. It might well be that approaching a solicitor with such a case was foreboding 20 years ago, but it is not now, following the development of no win, no fee cases and so on.
	It is difficult to say exactly how big the claims management company sector is, but it might be of the order of £0.5 billion, which is enormous. There is nothing wrong with making money, but from a public policy perspective, we must draw a distinction between activities that add value to the individual and those that just take a share of the value chain and ultimately push up costs for everybody else. That is combined with the natural distaste that we have for selling people’s cases as some kind of commodity. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) referred to the ability of industry players to shape-shift. I think that the new clause would effectively prohibit subcontracting, but not, of course, mergers and acquisitions, which would simply create a new form.
	I want, however, to talk specifically about the online marketplace. There is a sliding scale with referral fees: at one extreme, we have ambulance chasers, insurance companies and garages selling hot leads, while at the other end of the scale, we have a Google search, for
	which, in a sense, a referral fee is also paid. Somewhere in the middle are the trade unions, with the Labour party having, of course, enjoyed significant income from referral fees. However, I want to talk about the online aspect. Presumably, nobody would object to a Google search fee as a marketing cost, but it is in the nature of these industries—we see it with cost comparison websites, for example—that consolidated intermediaries emerge who pay the search engines a certain amount of money, but then charge the customer, which in this case would be the law firm, a greater amount of money. Does that count as a referral fee? Given that technology for consumer targeting improves over time, it might be possible, on social media for example, to identify people likely to have had a recent accident. That would involve a much higher marketing cost per contact, but would it count as a referral fee?
	I hope that the Minister can clarify exactly how the regulations are intended to work. Obviously, that would be a matter for the regulator, but I am keen to hear the Government’s intention.

Louise Ellman: I welcome tonight’s discussion about action on referral fees. In March, the Transport Committee produced a report in which we investigated the reasons for the 40% increase in premiums for private motor insurance. We identified referral fees as one of the reasons. The others included cold calling, inflated bills, high accident rates among young people, fraud and uninsured driving. However, I seek clarification on two areas from the Minister, although some of these points have been raised in earlier contributions.
	The first issue is the scope of the Government’s proposals. The Committee’s report referred to the merry-go-round of referral fees and identified not only solicitors, but credit hire firms, vehicle repairers, medical experts and management accident firms. I am not clear from the Minister’s explanation of the new clause whether all, or some, of these organisations will be included in the proposals. If we are looking at referral fees as a reason for the greatly increased costs of motor insurance premiums, it is not good enough to look only at solicitors; we have to look at all these other areas as well.
	The second area relates to how companies would be prevented from finding ways of avoiding the new legislation. When the Committee conducted its first inquiry on this issue, we received evidence that if referral fees were banned claims management companies would buy solicitors’ practices and, under the plans for alternative business structures, it could be normal for non-legally qualified individuals to do so. On the face of it, it seems that there would be an easy way of avoiding the legislation. I have not heard anything in detail about how that would be addressed. The Minister is correct that he was asked that question when he came before the Committee two weeks ago, but we received no clear explanation of how the issue would be addressed.
	Those are the points that I wished to raise tonight. I know that I shall have other opportunities to look more broadly at the rising costs of motor insurance, but tonight, in this debate on action to be taken over referral fees, I ask for further explanation about how the Government’s proposals will deal with those two important points.

Bob Blackman: I, fortunately, have not been the victim of a car crash or accident at work, although, judging from the volume of texts, e-mail messages and voice calls to my mobile and home phone one might believe that I was confined to a hospital bed or wheelchair. This is one of the aspects that have to be combated in legislation. I therefore support what the Government are doing in trying to prevent this type of activity, although I would like clarification from the Minister on three issues.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) alluded to the first matter: the definition of “referral fee” and the potential for people to get around it. That is rather important, particularly given that it has been suggested that we make it a criminal offence. While the definition lacks clarity, it will be difficult to make it a criminal offence.
	The second important issue is fairness for the individual. If a victim of an accident—for example, someone who has suffered a spinal injury—goes along to their high street solicitor for advice and help, the firm might decide to give that help and advice and start the case, but somewhere along the line it might determine that it does not have the expertise necessary and refer it to an expert solicitor who deals with nothing but such claims. How will the first solicitor be recompensed for their work, if they cannot claim a referral fee? I would like clarification on that point, because, quite clearly, that would require a great deal of professional work for which the solicitor might not receive any recompense. That needs to be clarified.

Jack Straw: Surely, the firm would get paid for the costs it had incurred. Indeed, it would not pass on the file until its costs had been paid. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a further defect of referral fees is that they might skew the judgment of the first solicitor advising the client on the best firm to go to? The solicitor might make a decision on the basis not of which is the best firm, but of which is likely to pay the biggest referral fee.

Bob Blackman: The other problem is that if solicitors did not believe that they would get paid for the work, they might hang on to the case and take it to conclusion, despite not being an expert. That presents a huge risk to the individual, who possibly has a case.

Andy Slaughter: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). To put it slightly differently, the hon. Gentleman is quite right that firms might want to hang on to work even after it goes beyond their expertise, so an inducement to pass it on might work. I am not saying that in favour of referral fees, but it does happen, and we have to be aware of it.
	He is absolutely right about the definition of referral fees. When the Minister announced, rather hastily, in response to my right hon. Friend, that the Government were banning them, he admitted that he could not define “referral fee”. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, therefore, that a number of problems still need to be resolved, but those are questions that he should be putting to his Front Bench team. He should be asking why they have not sorted out these matters, including on his point about text messages.

Bob Blackman: As I said, I hope to get clarity at the conclusion of the debate, because this is clearly a problem. I would like these illicit text messages and such like to be criminalised, because they are clearly an abuse of the law. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) said, they should be criminalised already under the Data Protection Act, because they constitute an abuse of personal data.
	I seek clarity on a third issue: the effect on claims management companies of banning referral fees. I sought advice from Accident Advice Helpline, which is based in my constituency. It informs me that only one in six of its 36,000 cases last year were referred to solicitors, with the rest being screened out. Of those, 70% led to a settlement, with 15% dropped owing to “no involvement”. I could go through all the details of the data, but the reality is that Accident Advice Helpline screens the cases, which costs money. If Accident Advice Helpline does not do that, other solicitors will have to do it, at a cost to themselves. I would therefore like some clarity on what the effect will be and how it is proposed that those companies will be funded so that they do not fall foul of the regulations.

Kate Green: I, too, am keen to ask the Minister some questions, similar to those put by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman).
	I completely share other hon. Members’ concerns about securing much better protection for the consumer, but given that the amendments have been introduced rather hastily I hope that the Minister will assure us that there will be a level playing field for different business types and, in particular, that access to independent legal advice from independent solicitors will be protected for claimants.
	I therefore seek a fuller explanation from the Minister of how it is intended that referral fees will be defined. Specifically, to what extent does he see marketing activity by solicitors and others as covered—or not covered—by the provisions? For example, as has already been suggested, if a high street solicitor takes on some work, but realises that he or she does not have the expertise to pursue the case and therefore refers it to another solicitor and arranges some form of fee sharing, how is it intended that this should be treated under the provisions? Some solicitors have grouped together to pool their marketing budgets. Is the intention of the Minister’s amendments to outlaw pooled marketing completely or to cover it in regulation? It would be useful to have some clarification on that.
	I welcome what the Minister said in answer to my earlier intervention about alternative business structures, but I am curious to know what his assessment is of the possibility that more and more large claims management companies will seek to handle all such business in-house and will stop using the services of other legal firms or legal experts. Has he made any assessment of the possibility of the provision of such services being concentrated in a way that reduces consumer choice and independent advice, and will he say what steps he might take to address that?

Kevan Jones: I welcome the banning of referral fees, and I congratulate the Minister and the Government on doing it. The scandal is that, frankly, it should have been done years ago. My hon. Friend the Member for
	Bassetlaw (John Mann) and I campaigned hard to expose the scandal surrounding the miners compensation scheme, which created a feeding frenzy not just for solicitors but for claims management companies. As I have said before—and to answer the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman)—I frankly do not care if they all go bust, because they are not needed in this process. If people need legal advice, they go to a solicitor. Claims management companies have acted like parasites on the access to justice model that we have had in this country for many years.
	I find it ironic that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) said that I was referring to Blackburn as a middle-England constituency, because I was not. The fact of the matter is that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw and I, along with one or two other Members, argued hard about the scandal surrounding the miners compensation scheme. One of the key points was referral fees and the amount of money received not only by solicitors but by unscrupulous trade unions and unscrupulous claims handling companies. The issue was regulated in 2004, with referral fees being made legal. However, in the case of the miners compensation scheme it was quite obvious that referral fees were being paid and that the Law Society was turning a blind eye—I always refer to the Law Society as the best trade union in the world, because it does such a good job of protecting its self-interest.
	In the case of the miners compensation scheme, it was an absolute scandal that claims managing companies were springing up like the morning dew, but then disappearing as soon as they had, as it were, harvested the claims in an area, which they did in two ways. There was no internet in those days—many communities do not have access to the internet—so the companies used cold calling to target poor widows and people who were seriously ill, in many cases claiming to be solicitors. Many of my constituents signed up with claims management companies, but anyone who asked them which firm of solicitors they were with would be referred to the claims management company. It came as a great surprise when it was pointed out that the company in question was not legally qualified.
	However, the claims management scandal surrounding the miners compensation scheme could not have continued were it not for solicitors being implicated. I find it ironic that the Law Society and solicitors should more or less stand back and say, “This problem’s got out of hand because of these nasty claims management companies”, because they have also been part of the system and have fed the process. Do I think that there is any need for claims management companies? No, I do not. Indeed, some companies involved in the miners compensation scheme lasted only 12 months, because they were wound up once they had harvested an area. Banning referral fees is a welcome step forward. Would I criminalise the practice? Yes, I would, because the principle that those who are injured in any way should receive compensation is right, yet those seeking access to justice—I am not talking about “the consumer”—are not helped by claims handling companies, which just feed off the process.
	We in the Labour Government introduced the claims regulation authority. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), speaking
	from the Front Bench, because I believe that was the right step forward. I pay tribute to Kevin Rousell and others who helped to set that organisation up, because they introduced regulation for the first time in an area where there was none at all, as well as seeing off some of the most unscrupulous claims handling companies that were feeding off the back of the miners compensation scheme.
	However, I suppose I have some issues with the referral fee being banned, and I would like to give an example: the scandal of the Durham Miners Association and its association with Thompsons solicitors, which I have referred to in the Chamber before. One could argue that a referral was not paid in that case. However, the way the scam worked—I have described it before as a “scam”, and I shall continue to do so—was that people had to pay a £20 fee to join the Durham Miners Association. They then had to sign an agreement whereby if they were successful, 7.5% of their compensation was paid back to the Durham Miners Association, even though every penny of the fees in such cases were paid by the Government.
	I want some clarity from the Minister on whether such cases would be covered by the provisions dealing with referral fees, because although there was no direct payment by the Durham Miners Association to Thompsons solicitors, there was, in fact, in the sense of the firm getting the cases, because on no occasion were its would-be clients told that they could have gone to any other solicitor and received the same advice and support for absolutely nothing. I would therefore like the Minister to clarify whether that practice will be outlawed under these proposals, because that case involved a lot of people being misled. I was pleased that, following pressure from the claims regulation authority and others, Thompsons had to pay back quite a lot of money—I think the total came to several million pounds—to claimants from whom money had been taken. Indeed, when they heard that they were paying fees for absolutely nothing, many of my constituents were shocked. I would therefore like some clarification on that issue.
	The other issue on which I would like some clarification is the role of the Law Society and its regulations. As I have said, we have all known that the scandal has gone on for many years, including before 2004, but if the change is to be robustly enforced, the Law Society has to send the clear message to its members that it will not sanction such practices.
	Another issue on which I would like clarification is that of selling insurance. The scandal of the miners compensation scheme related to referral fees being paid to industrial injuries claims companies such as IDC of Ashington. Many of my constituents thought that that was a firm of solicitors, but in fact it was selling on the claims to individual solicitors firms. Part of its scam was that people had to buy the insurance policy that went with the service. The claims handling company was getting a fee from the solicitors, as well as a payment from the insurance premiums.
	I congratulate the Minister on banning referral fees, but he must ensure that the multitude of scams that existed to hide the way in which referral fees were being paid before 2004 does not re-emerge. If this is going to work, he must ensure that those who dream up inventive ways of charging referral fees are looked into. I suggest that he talk to the claims management regulator, because
	it will have seen most of the scams that came to light in relation to the miners compensation scheme. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn has also highlighted some of the scams, or inventive ways in which people can get round the regulation of referral fees. I welcome the ban on referral fees, and I wish the Minister’s proposals well. I would, however, issue a word of warning in that he will need to look out for the various scams that people will come up with in order to get round it.

Alan Beith: Like the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), I had coal mines in my constituency. There were three working mines there, and I saw evidence of the scandal that he described. It was absolutely dreadful in many ways. Today, I want to ask for clarification of the Government’s intentions in two areas. One relates to the broadening of this issue beyond personal injury. New clause 18 provides for the Lord Chancellor to make regulations specifying wider ranges of legal businesses. I hope that there is a clear intention on the Government’s part, probably involving consultation, to move on to all the sectors in which referral fees have the potential to distort or damage competition or to undermine the position of the consumer. I would like a clear indication that the Government are going to examine a number of other areas.
	Secondly, the Minister was very helpful earlier on the question of custodial sentences for breaches of the Data Protection Act, and I hope that that means that the Government have moved on from their position of saying, “We’ll have to wait until the end of the Leveson inquiry.” That represented a complete misunderstanding of the situation. The question of custodial sentences for data protection offences is not primarily about the issues that have been raised in the Leveson inquiry about the media; it is about the everyday circumstances of our constituents whose personal information is abused by the organisations that hold it. That matter ought not to have to wait until the completion of an inquiry into a wider range of issues. I hope that the Minister’s earlier helpfulness will be repeated in implementing a measure on which the House has already decided—namely, that there should be a custodial penalty in such cases.

Jonathan Djanogly: We have had a good, far-ranging debate this afternoon. Given that another important debate needs to be completed by 8 o’clock, I am sorry to say that I shall have to make my way quickly through the points that have been raised. I am pleased to hear at least a grudging agreement in principle with our ban on referral fees from the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter). I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and all the other right hon. and hon. Members for their support for our desire to implement the ban. I am pleased that the debate today has been about how that should be done, not about whether it should be done.
	The hon. Member for Hammersmith asked why we had not consulted on banning referral fees, and I can tell him that Lord Justice Jackson made 109 recommendations, and it would not have been practical to consult on them all at once. It also made good sense to await the outcome of the Legal Services Board’s work in this area. Many respondents to our consultation on implementing Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations included their views on referral fees. Those views, along with the work
	undertaken by the LSB and the Transport Committee, have been carefully considered. The hon. Gentleman clearly raised some serious issues relating to the regulation of claims management companies, but they were not directly relevant to the Bill. I must point out that, in the past year, the Ministry of Justice has cancelled 349 authorisations of CMCs, whereas in the last year of the Labour Government, it cancelled only 35.
	The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) asked a number of important questions. If he does not mind, I will write to him about those issues. I can say, however, that under the Compensation Act 2006, it is an offence to provide regulated claims management services unless authorised or exempt. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that the exemption applies to trade unions, and that is part of the problem that he rightly highlighted. I was present at the debate that he held on that subject several years ago.
	The hon. Member for Hammersmith covered several other matters, but he essentially spoke to tomorrow’s debate, and we will deal with those issues then. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked about some important aspects relating to the consumer. The Chairman of the Transport Select Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), rightly mentioned that share premiums had risen by 40% in the last year alone. This is of course a matter of concern, and we have discussed it with the Association of British Insurers. It has said that if the proposals are effected with the other changes to recoverability of success fees in after-the-event insurance, it would hope to see a fall in insurance premiums. I certainly hope that that is a credible position.
	As I said at the outset, there is broad support across the House for a ban on referral fees, although there is some disagreement on how best to implement the ban. The right hon. Member for Blackburn spoke to his amendments with typical passion, but I would like to set out briefly why the Government cannot support them. Amendments (a) to (c) to new clause 18 seek to capture within the prohibition all arrangements to pay or receive referral fees, even when a payment has not yet been made. These amendments might have been tabled in support of his amendment to make the payment and receipt of referral fees a criminal offence. However, I am concerned that capturing an agreement to pay referral fees when payment might not have occurred would be very difficult to enforce. A solicitor’s accounts, for example, might well show that a particular payment had been made that could, on the face of it, be a referral fee. However, it is unlikely that agreements, which in some cases might be no more than verbal agreements, could be so readily identified without time-consuming investigation. In any event, we do not think that it is necessary to provide for this eventuality, first because such agreements would be unenforceable under subsection (6) of new clause 19 and, secondly, because whatever might be agreed, the payment of the referral fee would still be prohibited. So, in practice, it is unlikely that a party would enter into an agreement to pay a referral fee when payment would be a breach of the prohibition and the agreement would not be enforceable.
	I have already dealt, in moving the new clause, with the arguments against amendment (e), which seeks to create a new criminal offence. I should just reiterate that the Government are fully committed to ensuring that the ban will work effectively.

Jack Straw: When I made my point about the banning of referral fees being backed by the criminal law, the Lord Chancellor did not say that he agreed with me, but he did say, on 13 September:
	“We are now considering the way in which to put this into practice, but it is likely to be in the form recommended”—[Official Report, 13 September 2011; Vol. 532, c. 879.]
	—that is, a criminal prohibition as well as a regulatory one. He appeared to have an open mind about that, so what has changed since then?

Jonathan Djanogly: I have just confirmed with my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor that, in the next sentence of that quote, he said that he had not committed to creating a criminal offence.
	I can assure the right hon. Member for Blackburn that we have thought long and hard about how to achieve this, and I am aware of the concerns raised in the Justice Committee’s recent report on referral fees and the theft of personal data. The Committee’s Chairman made the point again today that the penalties for breaching section 55 of the Data Protection Act were not sufficient. The Government are keeping the question of whether to introduce custodial penalties for section 55 offences under review, and we will respond to the Justice Committee’s report in due course. However, the issue of how to deal with people such as rogue motor garage workers or nurses who are breaking the law by breaching the Data Protection Act is separate from that of how to introduce a new ban on regulated bodies to prevent them from paying referral fees, which they are currently permitted to do. I strongly believe that our ban, which will stop lawyers, claims management companies and insurance companies from paying and receiving referral fees, will remove the incentives for selling personal data from the whole system. That is because there will be no one for the rogue garage, for instance, to sell the data to, as all the people in the system who can make any profit out of handling claims will be prevented from paying referral fees. My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) well set out the complexity involved in this instance.
	The right hon. Member for Blackburn has also tabled an amendment to alter the way in which legitimate payments for services are defined. The effect of amendment (b) to new clause 19 would be that payments for services would be permitted only if they were
	“proportionate and reasonable in the circumstances.”
	The Government recognise that there are some completely legitimate practices that involve payments between lawyers and third parties, such as obtaining medical reports, which should continue. However, clause 19 aims to prevent the exchange of referral fees under the guise of those services. The onus would be on the regulated person to show it was made for the provision of services. The effect of subsection (9) of the Government’s new clause 19 would be to enable the Lord Chancellor to
	make regulations specifying the maximum amount that may be paid for certain services, without it being treated as a referral fee. Therefore amendment (b) is unnecessary.
	I must say that I am convinced of the need to have the power to make further regulations, should the need arise. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) rightly brought up the question of extending the scope, and I can tell him that there are no current plans to extend the scope beyond personal injury, although, as he says, this is provided for in the Bill and might be relevant in due course.
	We are repeatedly warned that the industry will find ways to circumvent the ban, and payments for services are one way in which it might do this, so having the power to set up regulations is, I agree, correct. I hope I have reassured the right hon. Member for Blackburn that we have the mechanics in place to stop these referral fees continuing to be paid under the guise of payments for services. I urge the right hon. Gentleman not to press his amendments.

Question put and agreed  to .
	Clause accordingly read a Second time.
	Amendment proposed to new clause 18: (e), line 16, at end insert—
	‘(2A) A breach of the provisions of this section shall be an offence, punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or on indictment for a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years, or a fine, or both.’.—(Mr. Straw . )
	The House divided:
	Ayes 208, Noes 302.

Question accordingly negatived.
	New clause 18 added to the Bill.

New Clause 19
	 — 
	Effect of the rules against referral fees

‘(1) The relevant regulator must ensure that it has appropriate arrangements for monitoring and enforcing the restrictions imposed on regulated persons by section [Rules against referral fees].
	(2) A regulator may make rules for the purposes of subsection (1).
	(3) The rules may in particular provide for the relevant regulator to exercise in relation to anything done in breach of that section any powers (subject to subsections (5) and (6)) that the regulator would have in relation to anything done by the regulated person in breach of another restriction.
	(4) Where the relevant regulator is the Financial Services Authority, section [Regulation by the FSA] applies instead of subsections (1) to (3) (and (7) to (9)).
	(5) A breach of section [Rules against referral fees]—
	(a) does not make a person guilty of an offence, and
	(b) does not give rise to a right of action for breach of statutory duty.
	(6) A breach of section [Rules against referral fees] does not make anything void or unenforceable, but a contract to make or pay for a referral or arrangement in breach of that section is unenforceable.
	(7) Subsection (8) applies in a case where—
	(a) a referral of prescribed legal business has been made by or to a regulated person, or
	(b) a regulated person has made an arrangement as mentioned in section [Rules against referral fees](2)(a),
	and it appears to the regulator that a payment made to or by the regulated person may be a payment for the referral or for making the arrangement (a “referral fee”).
	(8) Rules under subsection (2) may provide for the payment to be treated as a referral fee unless the regulated person shows that the payment was made—
	(a) as consideration for the provision of services, or
	(b) for another reason,
	and not as a referral fee.
	(9) For the purposes of provision made by virtue of subsection (8) a payment that would otherwise be regarded as consideration for the provision of services of any description may be treated as a referral fee if it exceeds the amount specified in relation to services of that description in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor.’.—(Mr Dunne.)
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
	NewClause 20

Regulation by the FSA

‘(1) The Treasury may make regulations to enable the Financial Services Authority, where it is the relevant regulator, to take action for monitoring and enforcing compliance with the restrictions imposed on regulated persons by section [Rules against referral fees].
	(2) The regulations may apply, or make provision corresponding to, any of the provisions of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 with or without modification.
	(3) Those provisions include in particular—
	(a) provisions as to investigations, including powers of entry and search and criminal offences;
	(b) provisions for the grant of an injunction in relation to a contravention or anticipated contravention.
	(c) provisions giving Ministers or the Financial Services Authority powers to make subordinate legislation;
	(d) provisions for the Financial Services Authority to charge fees.
	(4) The regulations may make provision corresponding to the provision that may be made by virtue of section [Effect of the rules against referral fees](7) to (9) (but as if the reference to the Lord Chancellor were a reference to the Treasury).
	(5) The power to make regulations under this section is subject to section [Effect of the rules against referral fees](5) and (6).’.—(Mr Dunne.)
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 21
	 — 
	Regulators and regulated persons

‘(1) In relation to a referral of business within section [Rules against referral fees](4)(a)—
	(a) a regulator is any person listed in column 1 below;
	(b) a regulated person is any person listed in column 2;
	(c) a regulator in column 1 is the relevant regulator in relation to the corresponding person in column 2.
	
		
			 1. Regulator 2. Regulated person 
			 the Financial Services Authority an authorised person (within the meaning of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000) of a description specified in regulations made by the Treasury 
			 the Claims Management Regulator a person authorised by the Regulator under section 5(1)(a) of the Compensation Act 2006 to provide regulated claims management services 
			 the General Council of the Bar a person authorised by the Council to carry on a reserved legal activity within the meaning of the Legal Services Act 2007 
			 the Law Society a person authorised by the Society to carry on a reserved legal activity within the meaning of the Legal Services Act 2007 
			 a regulatory body specified for the purposes of this subsection in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor a person of a description specified in the regulations in relation to the body 
		
	
	(2) In relation to a referral of prescribed legal business of any other kind—
	(a) a regulator is any person listed in column 1 below and specified in relation to business of that kind in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor;
	(b) a regulated person is any person specified in accordance with column 2 in relation to business of that kind;
	(c) a person specified under paragraph (a) in relation to business of that kind is the relevant regulator in relation to a person specified in accordance with the corresponding entry in column 2 in relation to business of that kind.
	
		
			 1. Regulator 2. Regulated person 
			 the Financial Services Authority an authorised person (within the meaning of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000) of a description specified in regulations made by the Treasury 
			 the Claims Management Regulator a person who is authorised by the Regulator under section 5(1)(a) of the Compensation Act 2006 to provide regulated claims management services and is of a description specified in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor 
			 an approved regulator for the purposes of Part 3 of the Legal Services Act 2007 (approved legal activities); a person who is authorised by the regulator to carry on a reserved legal activity and is of a description specified in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor 
			 a licensing authority for the purposes of Part 5 of that Act (alternative business structures) a person who is licensed by the authority to carry on a reserved legal activity and is of a description specified in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor’.—(Mr Dunne.) 
		
	
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 22
	 — 
	Referral fees: regulations

‘(1) This section applies to any regulations under sections [Rules against referral fees], [Effect of the rules against referral fees], [Regulation by the FSA] and [Regulators and regulated persons].
	(2) The regulations are to be made by statutory instrument.
	(3) The power to make the regulations includes power to make consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional, transitory or saving provision.
	(4) A statutory instrument containing the regulations may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’.—(Mr Dunne.)
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 23
	 — 
	Removal of Limit on certain fines on conviction by magistrates’ court

‘(1) Where a relevant offence would, apart from this subsection, be punishable on summary conviction by a fine or maximum fine of £5,000 or more (however expressed), the offence is punishable on summary conviction by a fine of any amount.
	(2) Where a relevant power could, apart from this subsection, be exercised to create an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine or maximum fine of £5,000 or more (however expressed), the power may be exercised to create an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine of any amount.
	(3) For the purposes of this section, an offence or power is relevant if, immediately before the commencement day, it is contained in an Act or an instrument made under an Act (whether or not the offence or power is in force at that time).
	(4) Nothing in subsection (1) affects—
	(a) fines for offences committed before the commencement day,
	(b) fines that may be imposed on a person aged under 18, or
	(c) fines that may be imposed on a person convicted by a magistrates’ court who is to be sentenced as if convicted on indictment,
	and nothing in subsection (2) affects a relevant power to the extent that it relates to such fines.
	(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
	(a) make provision disapplying subsection (1) or (2),
	(b) make provision for a fine or maximum fine in relation to which subsection (1) is disapplied to be increased instead in accordance with the regulations, and
	(c) make provision for a power in relation to which subsection (2) is disapplied to be exercisable to create an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine or maximum fine of a higher amount specified or described in the regulations.
	(6) Subsection (7) applies in relation to a relevant offence that, immediately before the commencement day, is punishable on summary conviction by a fine or maximum fine expressed as a proportion of an amount of £5,000 or more (however that amount is expressed).
	(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the offence to be punishable on summary conviction by a fine of that proportion of a higher amount specified or described in the regulations.
	(8) Regulations under this section may not include provision affecting—
	(a) fines for offences committed before the regulations come into force,
	(b) fines that may be imposed on a person aged under 18, or
	(c) fines that may be imposed on a person convicted by a magistrates’ court who is to be sentenced as if convicted on indictment,
	or provision affecting a relevant power to the extent that it relates to such fines.
	(9) Regulations under this section—
	(a) may make different provision for different cases or circumstances,
	(b) may make provision generally or only for specified cases or circumstances, and
	(c) may make consequential, incidental, supplementary, transitional, transitory or saving provision.
	(10) The power under subsection (9)(c), and the power under section 115 to make provision in relation to this section, include power to amend, repeal, revoke or otherwise modify any provision which, immediately before the commencement day, is contained in an Act or an instrument made under an Act (whether or not the provision is in force at that time).
	(11) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument.
	(12) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
	(13) If, immediately before the commencement day, the sum specified as level 5 on the standard scale in section 37(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (standard scale of fines for summary offences) is greater than £5,000, the references in this section to £5,000 have effect as if they were references to that sum.
	(14) For the purposes of this section, an offence is relevant whether it is a summary offence or an offence triable either way.
	(15) In this section—
	“the commencement day” means the day on which subsection (1) of this section comes into force;
	“Act” includes an Act or Measure of the National Assembly for Wales.’.—(Mr Blunt.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Crispin Blunt: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Government new clause 24—Power to increase certain other fines on conviction by magistrates’ court.
	Government new clause 25—Power to amend standard scale of fines for summary offences.

Crispin Blunt: The new clauses are designed to remove the upper limits on the fines that can currently be imposed in magistrates courts. Raising the upper limits on fines gives sentencers greater flexibility to identify the most effective punishment appropriate to the offences and offenders before them, particularly when combined with other disposals such as suspended sentences when offenders are close to the custodial threshold.
	The Government believe that financial penalties, as long as they are set at the right level, can be just as effective as community payback or curfews in punishing offenders and deterring them from further offending. Fines hit offenders where it hurts: in their pockets. They also have the advantage of not affecting opportunities for employment or having an impact on family responsibilities, and hence can prevent further acceleration into a criminal lifestyle. Moreover, they do not impose a further burden on the already hard-pressed taxpayer or on society as a whole. Not only are fines punitive; they provide reparation for society, and serve as part of offenders’ restoration to all of us.
	That is why courts already have flexibility to impose fines in cases that have passed the community sentence threshold. It is entirely right for them to be able to consider the circumstances of the offences and of the offenders before them, and, having weighed up the various purposes of sentencing, to decide that a fine will provide an appropriate level of punishment and deterrence without needing to consider a community order. Courts already have wide discretion to make use of fines in appropriate cases, and the Government want to support and encourage that.
	We particularly wish to ensure that magistrates, who issue the vast majority of fines, have the powers that they need to set fines at levels that are proportionate to the most serious offences that come before them for trial. These clauses therefore make two key changes to the way that fines operate in the magistrates courts. The first is to replace all upper limits of £5,000 or more for fines available on summary conviction. At the moment, where an offence is triable on summary conviction only,
	magistrates do not have the option of committing the case to the Crown court for sentence and are constrained in their ability to fine by the statutory maximum fines. For the most serious offences tried by magistrates, that is generally £5,000, although for certain offences where the financial gain from offending is substantial—for example, in some environmental offences—the maximum fine can be as high as £50,000.
	For less serious offences, we believe that it is right to retain the differentials between the punishments. However, we wish to give Government and Parliament more flexibility to amend these maxima as the need arises.

Gareth Johnson: Will the Minister give way?

Crispin Blunt: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I need to conclude my remarks and allow the Opposition to respond.
	The second change these clauses propose is to give the Secretary of State a power to increase the current maximum fine amounts for levels 1 to 4 on the standard scale of fines for summary offences. These amounts are currently £200, £500, £1,000 and £2,500. The new power would be to increase these so as to keep them in the same ratio to one another as at present. There is already a similar power to change them in line with changes in the value of money, so the new power would be an extension of that. We intend to consult on the right level at which to set these new maxima.
	That should form part of a wider review of sentences served in the community, so I want to use this debate to notify the House that we are entering a review process, which we intend will in due course lead to a formal public consultation on community sentences. For too long, community sentences have failed to punish offenders properly for their actions, and the Government are committed to changing that. We are already taking action, including through this Bill, to strengthen community orders, but we want to go much further and deliver a step change in the way sentences operate. They must, of course, address the problems that have caused the offending behaviour in the first place—the drug abuse, the alcoholism, the mental health problems—but they must also punish properly and send a clear message to society that wrongdoing will not be tolerated. We want to see a clear punitive element in every sentence handed out by the courts.
	We will consult on further reforms to ensure that community sentences effectively punish and rehabilitate offenders. That should include consulting on what constitutes effective delivery of the principles of sentencing, punishment and rehabilitation, as I have mentioned, but also on protection of the public, restoration and how the whole package can produce the most effective deterrent to crime. A part of this consultation will be on the new maxima at levels 1 to 4 in the magistrates courts.
	The Government want offenders to be in no doubt that the courts have the powers they need to punish their crimes. Once the victim’s compensation has been addressed—and if an offence presents no wider issues of reparation or public protection—if a court believes that a fine would be the best way of punishing an offender and deterring future offending, then we want to ensure that there are no barriers to courts setting the fine at the appropriate level.
	To sum up, these new clauses would remove the £5,000 cap on fines that magistrates can impose, so that they are able to use their discretion and set fines that are proportionate to the offences before them. That will also improve the efficiency of the court system, by removing the need for magistrates to send cases to the Crown court when they feel the current maximum fine is not a severe enough punishment for the offenders before them. For offences with caps set at less than £5,000, we propose to retain the current structure of differential maxima, with a power to increase them as necessary.
	I urge Members to support the measures.

Andy Slaughter: I thank the Minister for his clear account of the effects of these proposals, but I wonder why they are being introduced at this stage. He may wish to explain that. They are not controversial. We do not intend to oppose them as we think their measures are sensible, and we are glad that the Government are, for once, in favour of judicial discretion. They made certain concessions in Committee, one of which was not withdrawing magistrates’ powers to impose longer custodial sentences. We believe the magistrates system serves this country extremely well—this year marks its 650th anniversary. However, although these are sensible changes to current magistrates powers, we are concerned about the fact that, once again, they are part of a package of new measures.
	I will not take up any more of the House’s time as we shall shortly come on to discuss two very important and significant new provisions in the criminal law, of which we have had very little notice as they have been introduced at a very late stage. I therefore simply ask again why we have had to wait until Report stage for the measures currently under discussion to be introduced. We do not oppose the proposals, however, as we consider them to be sensible and uncontentious.

Alan Beith: How nice it is to hear the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) in conciliatory mood. The Minister has made a perfectly good case for increasing the level of fines available in magistrates courts. He gave several reasons for doing so, and I would add to them the giving of further encouragement to magistrates to deal with cases themselves wherever that is possible, rather than referring them upwards to the Crown court. This is part of a general increased empowerment of magistrates to deal with cases.
	The Minister has mentioned the wider issue of community penalties and non-custodial sentences, and the review and consultation that will address them. I hope that proves to be a fruitful process. There is a danger that he is giving two signals at once, however. He is hoping to give the necessary signal to the public that many offenders consider community sentences to be more demanding and rigorous, and much less congenial, than very short terms of imprisonment. Some offenders who have appeared before the Justice Committee have said they committed further offences because it was easier to spend the time in prison than to continue with a community sentence. The Government must also give a signal to the judiciary that it should make the maximum use of the available range of penalties, on the basis of
	what is most likely to reduce reoffending. If a rigorous, well-supervised and policed community sentence is more likely to reduce reoffending, the judiciary should be encouraged to choose that option. I hope people do not find the signals too confusing, hat we end up with a well-supported system of community penalties, and that people have confidence that for many offenders such penalties reduce reoffending more effectively than prison does.

Gareth Johnson: Although I support the Government’s proposals, it would make sense to remove the upper limit on financial penalties imposed by magistrates courts. The proposals do not relate to levels of compensation, so if magistrates are asked to sentence for, say, a theft of £5,000-worth of goods, they will still have to refer the matter to the Crown court for sentence if they do not have the power to award more than £5,000 compensation. I therefore wonder whether the Government would be willing to look at the levels of compensation in the future, to see if there is any scope for lifting the upper limit of compensation awards that magistrates courts can impose.

Crispin Blunt: I am grateful to have this brief opportunity to respond to the points raised. Let me see if I can do justice to the grudging support of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter). I am certainly profoundly grateful that we found him in a positive mood, and the fact that he welcomes these measures gives the answer to his questions. They are appropriate measures; that is why they are being welcomed across the House.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) is absolutely right that many defendants consider a proper combination of community sentences to be much more onerous than custody—and I want to increase the opportunities for that to be seen as much more onerous than custody. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is not present, but I remember him citing an example from the Daily Mail about a judge who threw the book at an offender because he thought he could not send him to prison: he gave the offender a combination of community sentences that were much more onerous than the custody would have been.
	We want to get to a place where we can get a better balance on sentencing, to make sure that we actually punish people in the most appropriate way and give sentences greater flexibility. That is what this measure will do. I will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), who made an entirely proper point. I want to make it absolutely clear that compensation comes first—
	Debate interrupted (Programme Order, 31 October).
	The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.
	Question agreed to.
	New clause 23 accordingly read  a  Second time, and added to the Bill.
	The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

New Clause 24
	 — 
	Power to increase certain other fines on conviction by magistrates’ court

‘(1) Subsection (2) applies in relation to a relevant offence which, immediately before the commencement day, is punishable on summary conviction by a fine or maximum fine of a fixed amount of less than £5,000.
	(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the offence to be punishable on summary conviction by a fine or maximum fine of a higher amount specified or described in the regulations.
	(3) Subsection (4) applies in relation to a relevant power which, immediately before the commencement day, can be exercised to create an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine or maximum fine of a fixed amount of less than £5,000 but not to create an offence so punishable by a fine or maximum fine of a fixed amount of £5,000 or more.
	(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the power to be exercisable to create an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine or maximum fine of a higher amount specified or described in the regulations.
	(5) Regulations under this section may not specify or describe an amount exceeding whichever is the greater of—
	(a) £5,000, or
	(b) the sum specified for the time being as level 4 on the standard scale.
	(6) Regulations under this section may not include provision affecting—
	(a) fines for offences committed before the regulations come into force,
	(b) fines that may be imposed on a person aged under 18, or
	(c) fines that may be imposed on a person convicted by a magistrates’ court who is to be sentenced as if convicted on indictment,
	or provision affecting a relevant power to the extent that it relates to such fines.
	(7) Regulations under this section—
	(a) may make different provision for different cases or circumstances,
	(b) may make provision generally or only for specified cases or circumstances, and
	(c) may make consequential, incidental, supplementary, transitional, transitory or saving provision.
	(8) The power under subsection (7)(c) includes power to amend, repeal, revoke or otherwise modify any provision which, immediately before the commencement day, is contained in an Act or an instrument made under an Act (whether or not the provision is in force at that time).
	(9) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument.
	(10) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
	(11) If, immediately before the commencement day, the sum specified as level 5 on the standard scale in section 37(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (standard scale of fines for summary offences) is greater than £5,000, the references in this section to £5,000 have effect as if they were references to that sum.
	(12) In this section “Act”, “the commencement day”, “relevant offence” and “relevant power” have the same meaning as in section [Removal of limit on certain fines on conviction by magistrates’ court].’.—(Mr Blunt.)
	Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 25
	 — 
	Power to amend standard scale of fines for summary offences

‘(1) The Secretary of State may by order substitute higher sums for the sums for the time being specified as levels 1 to 4 on the standard scale in section 37(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (standard scale of fines for summary offences).
	(2) The power under subsection (1) may not be exercised so as to alter the ratio of one of those levels to another.
	(3) In section 143 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (power to alter sums including standard scale of fines for summary offences), in subsection (3)(b), after “subsection (1) above” insert “or section [Power to amend standard scale of fines for summary offences] of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2011”.
	(4) In section 37 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (standard scale of fines for summary offences), in subsection (3), at the end insert “or section [Power to amend standard scale of fines for summary offences] of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2011”.
	(5) An order under this section is to be made by statutory instrument.
	(6) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
	(7) An order under this section does not affect fines for offences committed before the order comes into force.’.—(Mr Blunt.)
	Brought up, and added to the Bill.

Nigel Evans: Before we embark on the next debate, may I draw attention to Mr Speaker’s request, made earlier this afternoon, for brevity from the Front Benchers and Back Benchers in these debates so that all the important matters before the House for decision today can be properly considered?

New Clause 27
	 — 
	Reasonable force for the purposes of self-defence etc

‘(1) Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (reasonable force for the purposes of self-defence etc) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2) after paragraph (a) omit “and” and insert—
	“(aa) the common law defence of defence of property; and”.
	(3) After subsection (6) insert—
	“(6A) In deciding the question mentioned in subsection (3), a possibility that D could have retreated is to be considered (so far as relevant) as a factor to be taken into account, rather than as giving rise to a duty to retreat.”
	(4) In subsection (8) for “Subsection (7) is” substitute “Subsections (6A) and (7) are”.
	(5) In subsection (10)(a) after sub-paragraph (i) omit “or” and insert—
	(ia) the purpose of defence of property under the common law, or”.’.—(Mr Blunt.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Crispin Blunt: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 136 and 141.

Crispin Blunt: I shall certainly be following Mr Speaker’s direction, and I hope that we will dispose of this matter in as short an order as we disposed of removing the limit on magistrates’ fines.
	The question of how far one can go to defend oneself crops up again and again in the letters Members of Parliament receive from their constituents, and of course it is always a controversial issue in the press and the media. It usually arises because a hard-working, law-abiding home owner or shopkeeper has been forced to defend themselves against an intruder and has ended up being arrested for it. Being confronted by an assailant in one’s home, on the street or anywhere else can be a terrifying prospect. It is essential that the law in this area is clear, so that people who use reasonable force to defend themselves or to protect their properties can be confident that the law is on their side.
	There will always be occasions when the police need to make an arrest to enable a prompt and effective investigation, especially if they turn up at an address and somebody is dead. We are working with the Home Office on new guidance for the police to ensure that arrests are made only where necessary, but these provisions should give people greater certainty that the law itself is on their side and they will not be prosecuted or convicted if they have only used reasonable force.

Elfyn Llwyd: Will the Minister advise the House how the provisions change the common law doctrine and principle of a person being able to protect his or her property using force and the doctrine of self-defence, where reasonable force is used to defend oneself? I asked the Lord Chancellor that yesterday and he told me to wait until today for the answer—I am all ears.

Crispin Blunt: The right hon. Gentleman should listen out for the next passage of my remarks, as I hope it will give him and the rest of the House satisfaction.
	On the specific provisions, the new clause is not designed to sweep away the fundamental premise that somebody can use reasonable force in self-defence. In my view, that aspect of the law is entirely sensible. Allowing somebody to use unreasonable or disproportionate force would be very dangerous indeed, as it would effectively sanction vigilantism or violent retribution. Instead our proposals are designed to clarify what “reasonable” force means in practice. The new clause will amend section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 to make it clear that a person can use reasonable force to defend property in addition to defending themselves, other people or preventing crime, and that they are under no duty to retreat from an offender when acting for a legitimate purpose, although if they had a chance to retreat, the court may still consider it when deciding whether the force used was reasonable in the circumstances. We did not consult on these measures because of the limited nature of the amendments, but that should not detract from their importance in reassuring householders and small shopkeepers who use reasonable force to defend themselves and their properties that the law is on their side.

Karl Turner: Does the Minister not accept that the law works perfectly well as it is? Some years ago, I defended someone who had chopped off someone’s ear with a samurai sword and the jury acquitted him, saying that he had used reasonable force in the circumstances.

Crispin Blunt: I cannot comment on that individual case—[Interruption.] The shadow Justice Secretary tempts me down that road, but I will resist. The much clearer message that will be sent if the House chooses to accept the Government’s proposals will mean that the position should be crystal clear to householders and shopkeepers on the force that they are entitled to use. That is the purpose of these provisions. We are seeking to reassure the public, and this all sits as part of our desire to have a society that can exercise its rights and properly defend those rights, and that does not feel that people have to pass by on the other side, particularly when their lives and property are at risk.

Elfyn Llwyd: May I suggest to the Minister that legislating is not all about giving out signals and that it is about making law? I have no axe to grind personally with the Minister, who is a perfectly decent man and who engaged with us in Committee on many matters, above and beyond his brief. However, he may have wished to circulate a photocopy of the Crown Prosecution Service guidance on self-defence and the prevention of crime. Any fool can read and understand it, as it says simply, under the heading of “Reasonable Force”:
	“A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of: self-defence; or defence of another; or defence of property”.
	It goes on to describe a further two matters. Providing a copy of that would have done, rather than using legislative time.

Crispin Blunt: I am very grateful—[Interruption.] I am not embarrassed in the least. This measure forms part of the coalition agreement. We are delivering on that, sending a clear message and putting the law beyond doubt. Having things buried away in guidance to prosecutors, given that reassurance is needed for home owners and shopkeepers, is a distinctly sub-optimal way of proceeding on an issue such as this. When viewed in conjunction with the Home Secretary’s plans to strengthen the code of arrest for the police, we hope that these measures will help to fulfil the commitments in the coalition agreement on this issue. We must take together the instructions to Crown prosecutors, the legislation that I hope will go on to the statute book as a result of these Government measures and that code of arrest for the police, and I can therefore happily commend these proposals to the House.

Sadiq Khan: First, may I say, for the avoidance of doubt, that Labour Members do not intend to oppose new clause 27 or the consequential amendments, even though it is simply a rehash of an existing law and this valuable parliamentary time could have been used to discuss contentious issues that have caused real concern for many of our constituents? It was the previous Government, through section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, who placed the common law of self-defence into statute.
	Since that time, there have been a number of calls, especially from those on the right, to “tighten” the laws on self-defence because they think that is good politics. Back in February 2010, the Prime Minister argued that the law needed further tightening to benefit the home owner against the burglar. Indeed, the Conservative party manifesto said that it would
	“give householders greater legal protection if they have to defend themselves against intruders in their homes.”
	The Conservatives have floated on a number of occasions the issue of reasonable force and changing the law to allow anything other than actions that are grossly disproportionate. Back in December 2009, the shadow Home Secretary, now Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) committed a future Conservative Home Secretary to changing the law so that convictions against householders would happen only in cases where the actions involved were “grossly disproportionate.” But despite all the spin, that change has not materialised. The new clause will not allow home owners to use grossly disproportionate force or disproportionate force. It will not even strengthen the law. That is because expert opinion and evidence on the issue of self-defence for home owners is pretty unanimous.
	It is widely accepted by those at the coal face that the law on self-defence works pretty well and it is unclear in many quarters why the law would need strengthening. The Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, has said:
	“There are many cases, some involving death, where no prosecutions are brought. We would only ever bring a prosecution where we thought that the degree of force was unreasonable in such a way that the jury would realistically convict. So these are very rare cases and history tells us that the current test works very well.”
	That approach is further reinforced by what has happened in recent months. That is why the Minister, whom we all like, is embarrassed by having to move the new clause and why his right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary, whom we all love, has disappeared from the Chamber. Recent cases involving home owners such as Vincent Cooke in Cheshire, Peter Flanagan in Salford and Cecil Coley in Old Trafford, in which intruders were killed, have demonstrated that when reasonable force is deemed to have been used, the Crown Prosecution Service has not brought any charges, so the current law works. I see that a note is desperately being passed to the Minister—it is probably a sick note from the Justice Secretary.
	Paul Mendelle QC, a previous chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, said:
	“The law should always encourage people to be reasonable, not unreasonable; to be proportionate, not disproportionate.”
	He went on to add that the current law worked perfectly well and was well understood by juries. Just yesterday he argued in The Guardian that the two areas of change proposed by the Government are nothing of the sort. By amending section 76 of the 2008 Act so that there is no duty to retreat before force they are restating the current law. I think it is called rearranging the furniture: things might look different, but nothing of substance will have changed.

Geoffrey Cox: I understand the import and effect of the right hon. Gentleman’s criticisms, but what was done by section 76 if not precisely what the Government are doing—namely putting the common law on a statutory footing?

Sadiq Khan: I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman welcomed the Labour Government’s section 76, but it is because we have already done that that there is no point in doing it again. I appreciate that he would like to seek the glory for doing so, but we have already done it. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.

Geoffrey Cox: The right hon. Gentleman did not do this and neither did his Government. In seeking to codify the common law, they left out the defence of defending property. All the Government are doing now is making good a lacuna left by the Labour Government.

Sadiq Khan: With the greatest respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, he is wrong.
	Far from requiring retreat, the current law allows that even the first blow can still be reasonable force in self-defence. It is unclear what including the defence of property in the 2008 Act will add to the law as it does not differ from existing interpretations. The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), who speaks for Plaid Cymru, has given examples from the CPS guidance written in plain English. Perhaps he is suggesting that we should publish the CPS guidance and deliver it to every household in England and Wales, but I think that would be a waste of time. The Minister seems to believe that voters—home owners—will read the Bill to seek clarification of the law.
	Using legislation as a public relations stunt is no way to run a Government, especially when measures are introduced at the eleventh hour. Not only have the clauses on self-defence not been subjected to scrutiny or consultation, but it is not clear how much they will add to legislation on self-defence. The Government’s own impact assessment confirms that there will be no impact on the MOJ, so what we have today is not the Conservatives’ manifesto pledge—that is another broken promise, by the way—or a strengthening of the law, as it has been spun as being, but a simple restatement of the policy on self-defence, which had already been restated excellently back in 2008. For those reasons, we will not oppose the measures.

Elfyn Llwyd: It is often said in parliamentary circles that amendments, especially those moved by Opposition Members, are otiose, although I venture to suggest that few people outside this Chamber use that word, let alone know what it means: namely, that something is pointless. I start on the basis that this is pointless and I shall develop my argument point by point, if I am allowed to do so.

Sadiq Khan: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean the Justice Secretary or this new clause?

Elfyn Llwyd: No, like the right hon. Gentleman, I have the highest regard for the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I presume that this evening he is exercising his own right to self-defence by not being here. He has withdrawn from the Chamber and the possibility of being dealt a few blows that could actually hurt him. I say that not in a rude or pejorative fashion but in a semi-jocular way.
	Yesterday, I asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman to answer the very question I also asked the Minister: what would be the exact difference in the law after this
	measure was introduced? Answer came there none from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, except, “Hang on until tomorrow and all will be revealed.” In the past few minutes, the Minister has revealed all and, blow me, I am underwhelmed! I listened intently but reason or logic came there none and changes less still, so I am still none the wiser. “Could it be,” I ask myself, “that the Government are speaking to an audience outside the Chamber?” Surely not; surely, they are not actually addressing an audience outside the Chamber such as the tabloid groups. No, never, that could not be right—I have dismissed that idea.
	Currently, a householder may use reasonable force to defend him or herself or another, or in the prevention of crime, which includes defending a person’s property. The new clause therefore does nothing. The use of force in self-defence is governed by common law and the use of force in the prevention of crime is governed by section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967. In both cases, the test to be applied is whether the force used was necessary and, if so, whether the degree of force used was reasonable in all the circumstances.
	Whether the force used can be considered reasonable is decided according to the circumstances and the danger that the householder perceived him or herself to be in. The beauty of that law is the fact that it is so open, because circumstances change and one looks at the circumstances of each case. We have heard about someone having his ear sliced off and I can tell hon. Members about a case I defended in which, in a public house in north Wales, two families who were not very friendly met up. One was a family of poachers and the other of gamekeepers. Three members of one family jumped on top of one member of the other family in the toilets and the only way in which the lad, who was by himself, felt he could defend himself was by squeezing one of the others’ testicles in the most awful way. It left some permanent damage by the way, so it was not altogether a laughing matter—certainly not for the man involved. Anyway, the question for the court was whether the force used there and then was reasonable in all the circumstances and the court said, yes. So every case is decided on its merits; that is the beauty of the law of self-defence.
	I deduce therefore that the only possible justification for the change is to provide some form of clarification and/or, possibly, that somebody is addressing somebody outside. Section 76 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 clarifies the operation of the common law and section 3 defences as listed in the 1967 Act. The 2003 Act did not change the current test that allows the use of reasonable force and neither, I suspect, will new clause 27.
	Nor, indeed, can the Government argue that the law surrounding reasonable force is badly understood by the judiciary—professional or lay. The existing position with regard to property is set out clearly in layman’s terms in the CPS guidance “Self-defence and the prevention of crime”. It says:
	“Reasonable force. A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of: self-defence; or defence of another; or defence of property; or prevention of crime; or lawful arrest.
	In assessing the reasonableness of the force used, prosecutors should ask two questions:
	was the use of force necessary in the circumstances, i.e. Was there a need for any force at all? and
	was the force used reasonable in the circumstances?”
	The existing law works well and is well understood; 99% of the time it is well applied in courts and I do not know of any great tide of concern that the law needs further clarification.

Geoffrey Cox: Of course I agree with almost every word that the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but does he not agree that if the Government first enact section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 they might as well make it complete by including the defence of property? If they are going to bother with section 76 at all, they should make it complete and include the defence of property.

Elfyn Llwyd: I hear what the hon. and learned Gentleman says, and I suppose that that is right, but I come back to my earlier point that the whole process is otiose. I understand what he is saying, and he has logic on his side. We talk about logic, but parliamentary time is short. Yesterday we had to leave out consideration of a raft of important matters relating to social welfare and social justice. None of them was discussed. Yet we have time this evening to talk about something that is unnecessary. So although I respectfully disagree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, he has logic on his side. However, the new clause is not the right vehicle for clarification of the law.
	Quite why the measure is being introduced now is rather baffling. I can only presume that it is to please the tabloids and that this Government, like the last, want to convince voters that they are not soft on crime. Those on the right of the Justice Secretary’s party have made clear their aspirations to amend the law on reasonable force for some time now. As far back as 2009, the then shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), said that any future Conservative Government would push for prosecutions, and convictions, only where courts judged that the action taken had been “grossly disproportionate”. That would have stood the law on its head. A huge amount of jurisprudence would have emanated from that decision. No doubt the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) and I would have profited from it, but it would have been a bad step in my view. The Conservative party wound back somewhat after that was said.
	I am glad that such an extraordinary change to the law has not occurred, at least not yet. As Michael Wolkind QC, who represented Tony Martin, who was found guilty of murder and wounding with intent under the existing law, has said, allowing householders to use force that is not “grossly disproportionate” would amount to “state-sponsored revenge”.
	Indeed, an outsider looking in might be forgiven for suspecting that hundreds of people were being prosecuted every year under the current law. But an informal trawl by the CPS suggested that between 1990 and 2005 there were only 11 prosecutions of people who had used force against intruders in houses, commercial premises or private land. So that is what we are dealing with and it leads one to question why we are talking about it tonight.
	As the chair of the Bar Council Paul Mendelle QC said—it has been mentioned by the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), but it will stand repetition—
	“The law should always encourage people to be reasonable, not unreasonable; to be proportionate, not disproportionate.”
	Paul Mendelle also commented in the same article written in The Times that the present law worked well and was well understood by juries. Again, I ask why we are doing this.
	Changes to the law should not be brought about to produce good sound bites. The common law of self-defence already makes it perfectly clear that a householder is able to use reasonable force against an intruder in defence of himself or herself or his or her property. Amending the existing law for no gain in matters of substance will serve only to increase vigilantism and is not a good use of parliamentary time. It could lead to people using excessive force because they think they might be above the law—“An Englishman’s home is his castle” and all that kind of thing. I do not know. It might give out all the wrong signs, not the signs that Ministers on the Treasury Bench hope and suspect they are giving out.
	I believe that the new clause has more to do with internal party politics than with policy. We are using valuable parliamentary time to play this out. The amendment is otiose and serves only to play to the drum beat of the tabloid press. I have a lot of time for the Justice Secretary, who is a man of great integrity, but I fear that in introducing the new clause he is dancing to the tune of the tabloids.

Crispin Blunt: I will turn to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) towards the end of my speech, but first let me say how grateful I am to the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) for his kind personal remarks. I was marginally upset that I did not leap the amorous threshold that my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary did, but I am grateful for the limited extent of his affection compared to that for my right hon. and learned Friend.
	I was amazed at the chutzpah of the right hon. Member for Tooting in lecturing the Government about a public relations stunt and spin. It took me a moment to pick my jaw back up off the Bench as I listened to him. There is a clear answer to the right hon. Gentleman. He properly stood up for the legal system as it now sits. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) said, it is an inconsistent message if we have changed section 76 of the Criminal Justice Act but have not applied it to property, so let us make the position absolutely clear to everyone that not only in the code for crown prosecutors and in the common law but in statute law, as passed by the House, property is included. That is a clear reason for making this change.
	The right hon. Gentleman said that presumably the change was for an audience outside the Chamber. Yes, it is. It is all very well for sophisticates such as us, who understand the word “otiose”—used by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd)—but the issue goes right to people’s hearts. They feel that they are entitled to defend their home or their shop, and we owe it to them to make it crystal clear that we absolutely support them in defending themselves, their families and their property. The proposals make that
	absolutely clear. We need to understand that when something is so central to how everybody feels about their home, shop or place of business we must send a clear signal from this place about whose side we are on.

Sadiq Khan: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister’s flow, but I have a simple question. Once the law is on the statute book, will a home owner have more rights, fewer rights or the same rights as they have now?

Crispin Blunt: The home owner will have much greater reassurance about exercising their rights. [ Interruption. ] It is all for well for the lawyers on the Opposition Benches to cackle and say that the provision will not make any strict legal difference; it makes a profound difference in the reassurance that people will feel about operating in defence of their property and their life, which is why I am happy to commend the new clause to the House.
	Question put and agreed  to .
	Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause 26
	 — 
	Offence of squatting in a residential building

‘(1) A person commits an offence if—
	(a) the person is in a residential building as a trespasser having entered it as a trespasser,
	(b) the person knows or ought to know that he or she is a trespasser, and
	(c) the person is living in the building or intends to live there for any period.
	(2) The offence is not committed by a person holding over after the end of a lease or licence (even if the person leaves and re-enters the building).
	(3) For the purposes of this section—
	(a) “building” includes any structure or part of a structure (including a temporary or moveable structure), and
	(b) a building is “residential” if it is designed or adapted, before the time of entry, for use as a place to live.
	(4) For the purposes of this section the fact that a person derives title from a trespasser, or has the permission of a trespasser, does not prevent the person from being a trespasser.
	(5) A person convicted of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (or both).
	(6) In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the reference in subsection (5) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to 6 months.
	(7) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) it is irrelevant whether the person entered the building as a trespasser before or after the commencement of this section.’.—(Mr Blunt.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Crispin Blunt: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment (a) to new clause 26,line7, at end insert—
	‘(2A) The offence is not committed where the building has been empty for six months or more and where there are no significant steps being taken to refurbish, let or sell the building at the time of the trespass.’.
	Amendment (c) to new clause 26,line22 leave out subsection (7) and insert—
	‘(7) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) no offence is committed if the person initially entered the building as a trespasser before the commencement of this section.’.
	Government amendment 140

Crispin Blunt: The Government are very concerned about the harm that squatters can cause. Residential and non-residential property owners have contacted Ministers repeatedly about the appalling impact that squatting can have on their homes and businesses. These are not media scare stories; they are very real and stressful events for victims whose properties have been occupied.
	It is not just a question of the cost, length of time and incredible hassle involved in evicting squatters. Properties can be left in a terrible state after the squatters have been evicted and owners may face hefty cleaning and repair bills. While the property owner is literally left picking up the pieces, the squatters have gone on their merry way. They might even be squatting in somebody else’s property.
	The current law already offers some protection to both non-residential and residential property owners. Squatters may be guilty, in certain circumstances, of offences such as criminal damage and burglary. There is also an offence under section 7 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 that protects certain residential property owners. It applies when a trespasser fails to leave residential premises on being required to do so by or on behalf of a “displaced residential occupier” or a “protected intending occupier.” This means that people who have effectively been made homeless by squatters can ask the trespasser to leave, and if the trespasser refuses to leave, they can report an offence to the police.
	We do not think the existing legal framework goes far enough to tackle the problems I have just described. The offence under section 7 of the 1977 Act does not protect non-residential property owners or many residential property owners, including landlords, local authorities and second home owners, who cannot be classified as displaced residential occupiers or protected intending occupiers. Following the conclusion of a recent public consultation exercise, we have decided that decisive action is needed now to criminalise squatting in residential buildings. We want to reassure owners and lawful occupiers of residential property that the law will protect them should trespassers occupy their properties. We want to send a clear message to would-be squatters that it is simply not acceptable to occupy someone else’s home.

Tracey Crouch: I am sure the Minister will recall that a year ago tomorrow he met my constituent Steve Cross, a commercial property manager. The Government are clearly concerned about the impact of squatting in commercial property, so it is surprising that the new clause, which I entirely support, does not include greater protections for commercial properties. Will the Minister reassure my constituent that the Government have not forgotten the devastating impact of squatting on commercial property managers, and that they will continue to look at ways of strengthening the law to provide greater protection against squatters in commercial properties?

Crispin Blunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention and for bringing her constituent to see me. I absolutely give her that reassurance, and I will do so in terms during my prepared remarks, which I hope will show her that I have not forgotten that the consultation identified the fact that 50% of the harm caused by squatters was to the owners of commercial premises. Although we are not proposing to criminalise such squatting with these measures, it is certainly not forgotten.
	We recognise that this is a controversial area of policy. Many homelessness charities, for instance, are likely to continue to say that the new offence will criminalise homeless and vulnerable people who squat in run-down residential properties, but one of the reasons that the properties remain in that state is that the owners cannot get in to renovate them because the squatters are present. Consultation responses indicated that squats can be unhygienic and dangerous places to live and are no place for genuinely vulnerable people. That is why we will ensure that reforms in this area are handled sensitively, in conjunction with wider Government initiatives to tackle the root causes of homelessness. We are also working to provide affordable homes and to bring more empty homes back into use.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Minister will, like me, have read the documents presented by Crisis, which indicate that 40% of homeless people have been squatters at some time, and that because they are often single people, they have great difficulty in getting local authority or housing association accommodation, and there are 700,000 empty properties in the country. What are homeless people supposed to do?

Crispin Blunt: I will deal with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who has quite properly raised concerns in this area, and I will go into some detail to give the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) a proper answer to his question.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) said, there are others who will say that any new offence should extend to squatting in commercial premises. As I said to her, I remain concerned about squatting in those properties and will work with other Departments and the enforcement authorities to see whether action against existing offences such as criminal damage and burglary could be enforced more effectively in those cases.
	The Metropolitan police acknowledged, in response to our consultation, that a lack of training and practical knowledge regarding the law on squatting may be a barrier to effective enforcement. My officials will work with the Home Office and the wider police service to address these issues and fill any gaps in current police practice. We will keep the situation under review in relation to non-residential property and are not ruling out further action in the future if it is needed.

Jim Shannon: Will the legislation provide for co-operation or contact with services—electricity, water and so on—to those houses as a method whereby people can be taken out of those houses to ensure that the squatting does not continue? Will that be covered by the legislation?

Crispin Blunt: That is not strictly within the terms of what is proposed here. The effect would be to criminalise those who are squatting in residential premises and to create a new offence. As a first step we intend to limit the new offence to squatting in residential buildings. We consider that this option strikes the best balance. It will protect those who are likely to suffer most from squatting—those whose homes are taken over by squatters.
	I shall turn now to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. I know that he is a supporter of the campaign group Squatters Action for Secure Homes, and I also know that he agrees with the arguments put forward by homelessness charities, such as Crisis, that criminalising squatting will impact on homeless people who squat. I fully understand why he tabled the amendments, but I will take this opportunity to explain why I do not agree with them.
	On amendment (a), many squatters claim that they do not cause any harm to anybody because they look for empty properties to occupy. In the responses to our recent consultation exercise, that point was made by squatters and squatters groups, but respondents who made that argument were missing one rather important point: the houses are not theirs to occupy. There are many reasons why a house might be left empty for more than six months without any steps being taken to refurbish, let or sell the building. For example, somebody might decide to do charitable work in another country for a year, or they might visit their second home during the summer months only. It is the owner’s prerogative to leave the house empty in those circumstances. To say that property owners or occupiers should not be protected by the criminal law in these circumstances would be unjust and it would considerably weaken our proposed new offence.
	Consultation responses highlighted a concern about the number of properties that are left empty on a long-term basis. They argued that such properties can crumble into disrepair and might be seen as a blight on the local neighbourhood. But permitting squatters to occupy derelict, crumbling, unsafe houses cannot be the answer. We are doing a number of things to encourage absent owners to make better use of their properties.
	We want to increase the number of empty homes that are brought back into use as a sustainable way of increasing the overall supply of housing, and to reduce the perception of neglect that can blight neighbourhoods. Reducing the number of empty homes will also help to reduce the incidence of squatting. That is why we have announced £100 million of capital funding within the affordable homes programme to tackle problematic empty homes—that is properties that are likely to remain empty without extra direct financial assistance from the Government. This programme will deliver at least 3,300 affordable homes by March 2015, as well as engaging local communities in dealing with empty homes in their area.
	Amendment (c) is designed to exempt squatters from the offence if they occupy residential buildings before the date of commencement. Let me be clear that we have no plans to punish people retrospectively. If they have squatted in the past but are no longer squatting when the offence comes into force, the offence will not apply. However, we would be creating a significant loophole if we exempted squatters who initially entered the building as a trespasser in the run-up to commencement
	even though after commencement of the offence they remain in the building as a trespasser, they know or ought to know that they are a trespasser and that they are living there or intend to live there. Such an occupation would be no less painful for the property owners concerned.
	I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman and others are concerned that the new offence might penalise vulnerable, homeless people who squat in run-down residential properties. One of the reasons they remain in this state is, as I said, because the owners cannot get in to renovate them. It would be much better for us to introduce an offence that is capable of protecting law-abiding property owners and occupiers on the one hand, while working with other Government Departments, local authorities, the police and homelessness charities to continue to address the root causes of homelessness and to mitigate any impacts the new offence might have on the levels of rough sleeping.
	We are prioritising spending on homelessness prevention, investing £400 million over the next four years, with the homelessness grant being maintained at the 2010-11 level. For the first time, we have also brought together eight Departments through the ministerial working group on homelessness to tackle the complex causes of homelessness. The group published its first report “Vision to end rough sleeping” in July 2011, which sets out joint commitments to tackle homelessness and to ensure that nobody has to spend more than one night out on our streets—“No Second Night Out”. This includes actions to prevent homelessness for those people without a stable home who may be at risk of rough sleeping. For those reasons, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendments.

Caroline Lucas: It feels as though we are in a different world when the Minister describes these as measures to tackle homelessness and when one considers everything that the Government have been doing with their housing benefit cuts and with their cuts in shared room rate, which organisations say will cause thousands more people to become homeless. Is he not cognisant of those arguments being put forward very forcefully by those charities?

Crispin Blunt: I absolutely support the measures being brought forward by my colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government. The Minister for Housing and Local Government is absolutely right. One cannot but be impressed by his huge determination in chairing the ministerial group to address this issue. It is the other side of the equation, and I hope that it addresses the amendments and answers the question from the hon. Member for Islington North.
	The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked about linking up with the utility providers. It is already an offence under the Theft Act 1968 to use electricity without authority and the maximum penalty for that is five years’ imprisonment.
	I hope that the House will welcome this move to protect home owners and lawful occupiers of residential property from squatters.

Andy Slaughter: It is pleasure to have the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), at the Government Dispatch Box this evening.
	It is a shame that the Lord Chancellor is not here, but of course he was also absent when the provision was announced by the Prime Minister at the famous press conference on 21 June, when most of today’s business first saw the light of day, including the clause we have just debated. At times it appears that there is a parallel Bill: the agenda that the Government wish to present to the media, or which the media dictate to the Government.
	Sadly, the consequence for the House is that we do not have the opportunity to scrutinise the legislation properly. I do not know whether that is because the Government have no confidence in or commitment to their own legislation and are simply going through the motions, as we saw a little while ago, but the process of formulating the policy has been absurdly rushed, even by their standards. It is wholly inappropriate to introduce major changes to criminal law on Report. For that reason, among others, I suspect that the provisions will have a rather more torrid time in the other place than they will have here tonight.
	Squatters are a nightmare for homeowners and tenants alike. The Criminal Law Act 1977, which the Minister mentioned, makes it a criminal offence for any person not to leave premises when required to do so by “a displaced residential occupier” or “protected intending occupier” of the premises. Furthermore, parts 55(1) and 55(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules allow owners to evict someone from a residence they do not occupy. An interim possession order, backed up by powers in section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, mean that a criminal offence is committed if an individual does not leave within 24 hours of such an expedited order being granted.
	As the Minister confirmed in his opening remarks, new clause 26 seeks to deal with squatting in vacant properties for which there is no imminent plan for residency. The clause, as drafted, applies only to residential properties and will not apply where there has been a previous landlord and tenant relationship between the occupier and the owner. Those are not the cases that typically attract the media’s attention. For example, the case of Dr Cockerell and his wife, who was pregnant at the time, was widely reported this September, in the Evening Standard and other newspapers. In that case the police wrongly said that the case was a civil issue and not one for them. As I understand the facts as reported, Dr Cockerell and his wife would have been protected intending occupiers and the police should have intervened. I fear that their failure to do so is not atypical. I remarked in Committee that if we had a pound for every time the police said that something was a civil matter when someone goes to them, we would probably be able to build affordable housing in the country, unlike what the Government are doing. I worry that the Government are trying to introduce new legislation without implementing the legislation that already exists, which is clearly the case in the examples I have given so far.

Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend is old enough to recall the lengthy consultation that took place before the 1977 Act was introduced. It specifically distinguished between an occupied property and a property that had been left empty for a very long time. The issue at the time, particularly in London, was that vast numbers of
	empty properties were being squatted. That law was a product of consultation. There has been no consultation on this—
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	Well, there has been very limited consultation, but certainly not in the House, about criminalising people who are actually extremely desperate for all the reasons pointed out by my friend the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas).

Andy Slaughter: I think I was doing my politics A-level at the time, so I might have studied the Act as part of that. My hon. Friend makes an important point about housing need that the Minister, to be fair to him, also addressed, and I will move on to that in a moment. I will not say what grade I got in my politics A-level—[ Interruption. ] Let us just say that it probably would not impress the Education Secretary.
	We share the anger of people whose properties are damaged or vandalised by squatters. That is always wrong, and it is right to decry such behaviour. It is also right to say that there are, for want of a better term, lifestyle squatters—people who are part of the something-for-nothing society. We disagree with that, and we support the criminalisation of their activities. However, many squatters are homeless, and often have severe mental health or addiction problems.
	It may be a sign of the Government’s topsy-turvy logic that in one part of the Bill, which we support, they seek to divert those with mental health and drug problems from the criminal justice system, but this part may criminalise those very people. At the same time, we are seeing some of the most swingeing benefit cuts in history. Housing benefit has been mentioned. In constituencies like mine, thousands of families will be forced to move because of the cuts in housing benefit, or may lose their properties. Incompetence by the Department for Work and Pensions and its private sector agents, such as Atos Healthcare, is causing a rise in poverty and homelessness. We are seeing a massive increase in appeals on welfare benefits, and 170 extra staff have been hired by first-tier tribunals to deal with those appeals, many of which are successful. That is one reason why we oppose the Government’s proposals on social welfare legal aid.
	I wish that yesterday we had had the luxury that we have today—a timetabled programme with knives to grandstand some of the Government’s proposals. The House is thinly attended and the debate is frankly low key, whereas yesterday the Government engaged in talking out important measures on which many hon. Members wanted to speak. I noted what the Secretary of State, or it may have been the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), said about our debates tomorrow. I hope that we will have the debates that we want tomorrow, including those on part 2, and that Government Whips will not employ their tawdry tactics again.
	Some 40% of homeless people have squatted, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said, and 6% of homeless people are squatting at any one time. There is a significant prevalence of mental health problems, learning difficulties and substance addiction in those who are homeless.
	This afternoon, I opened a new project for homeless people in my constituency. Very experienced people from organisations for the homeless—they were not trying to be party political in any way—asked me a question that I could not answer. They said that the
	Work and Pensions Secretary talks about an underclass, or a feral class as the Justice Secretary also said, and says that the Government want to take action to help problem families and to relieve poverty at the bottom of society, so why do they wish to take measures that could criminalise those same people?
	The Government are clearly being tough on squatting, and we have no objection to that, but they are being incredibly weak, contrary to what the Minister said, on the causes of squatting. In fact, their impact assessment gives a hint of who the people are who often end up squatting. It says:
	“Local authorities and homelessness…charities may face increased pressure on their services if more squatters are arrested/convicted and/or deterred from squatting. Local authorities may be required to provide alternative accommodation for these individuals and could also face costs related to increases in rough sleeping in their areas. An increase in demand for charities’ services (food/shelter etc.) may negatively impact current charity service users…There may also be a cost to society if this option is perceived to”
	be
	“unfair and/or leads to increases in rough sleeping.”
	The pièce de résistance is:
	“It has not been possible to quantify these costs.”
	The Government accept that there will be pressure on services, but say that they cannot quantify the cost. Why? They do not know how many people squat. I believe—the Minister will no doubt correct me if I am wrong—that the civil servants have used figures from squatters’ organisations to estimate how many squatters there may be. The Government’s estimate is that there are between 340 and 4,200 criminal squatting cases across England and Wales, and that the Crown Prosecution Service will charge between 850 and 10,600 offenders.
	The Government accept in their response to the consultation that
	“as with any criminal offence there would be an operational discretion as to whether a person should be charged with an offence.”
	I think that goes without saying, but they say it in particular with respect to hikers who take refuge in a house to take shelter from the elements. [Interruption.] I am glad that the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), is interested, and I will say a bit more about that. It is a problem that the Government see as a possible unintended consequence of the new legislation. They state:
	“The Government accepts that hikers who occupy a residential building in these circumstances might be committing an offence as a result of its proposals. In practice, however, it seems unlikely that the property owner would make a complaint”,
	so that is all right. They continue:
	“Even if a complaint were made, as with any criminal offence there would be an operational discretion as to whether a person should be charged with an offence. The Government considered creating a ‘reasonable excuse’ defence to allow for this type of situation, but was concerned that such a defence would be open to abuse and might render the new offence toothless.”
	I have seen some pretty shoddily justified legislation in my time, but that really is an “on the one hand, on the other hand” explanation.
	I hope that at the very least the Minister will tell us whether his intention is to apply the discretion that he wishes to see applied to hikers, an important category of citizen, to those who occupy empty properties out of desperation—the people the Government’s own impact
	assessment states would now have to resort to sleeping rough. They could include people with mental health or addiction problems whom it may be more appropriate to give treatment than to detain in jail. I have heard the Minister make that argument in another context in Committee. I note that this farrago and confusion would not have happened had the appropriate parliamentary process been followed.
	It is common practice in a Second Reading debate—this increasingly feels like Second Reading, when we see measures for the first time and pass general comments on them—for a proposal that has some merit but needs refinement to be allowed through. That is what we intend to do today. We support the idea that there may be categories of squatters who need to be criminalised, although we say that the current criminal law is not being properly used in that respect.
	I hope that the Minister will not think that our decision to allow matters to proceed is an unthinking endorsement of his position. Those who think squatting an acceptable lifestyle choice should be under no illusion about the fact that we disagree, and we support the criminalisation of what is, frankly, arrogant behaviour. For that reason, we believe it is right to allow the matter to be scrutinised in another place. However, there remain issues to consider and more thought and deliberation to be done before the new clause reaches the statute book.
	I hope that the Government will at the very least consider the issues that I have raised today, and those that other hon. Members will no doubt raise, and keep them in mind when they feel the endorphin rush of a few cheap tabloid headlines again. I hope that they will think seriously about all the implications of the new clause and come up with something a little clearer, better defined and less vague.
	The Minister will no doubt say that I am giving less than wholehearted support. Not true. We support the Government’s intention, but we believe that because they have once again rushed matters towards the statute book, they have not given them proper and clear consideration thus far. Once again, they leave it to another place to do that.

Mike Weatherley: Today is a good day for the law-abiding citizens of this country and a bad day for those wanting something for nothing. Since my election nearly 18 months ago, I have been campaigning to criminalise squatting, including in an excellent Westminster Hall debate with the Minister about a year ago. I congratulate the Government on tabling the new clause.
	I wish to dispel once and for all the myth that squatters and homeless people are one and the same. My Hove and Portslade area contains both wealth and deprivation. It is a Mecca for every character imaginable, and that is what makes it such a wonderfully diverse place to live. Homelessness is an issue, and we have a fantastic support network of local charities, including Emmaus, Brighton Housing Trust, the YMCA and Off the Fence, which looks after a great number of vulnerable people through Project Antifreeze—indeed, I will visit Off the Fence again this Friday. It is our duty to look after homeless people. I fully support all the excellent work being done and the Government’s commitment to do even more.
	In my experience, squatters rarely fit the profile of the vulnerable people whom we should be looking out for. Serial squatters know the law. They are web-savvy and highly resourceful. They run rings around the law, and what professional squatters lack in respect for other people’s property they make up for in guile and tenacity. They are organised and frequently menacing, as we saw last night outside this place. When they entered a property in Hove recently, a web advert went out, and squatters from as far afield as Bristol turned up to party. They were not vulnerable persons looking for a bed for the night. Many simply wanted to have a good time in a nice city for nothing.
	In another case, a lady in my constituency sadly died. While her family were sorting out the funeral arrangements and the sale of her estate, the squatters moved in. They refused to leave no matter that they knew they were causing distress. Ten thousand pounds in legal fees later, the family finally got their mother’s treasured keepsakes back.
	In another instance, when evicted from one property, the squatters simply moved in next door. I understand that they did so through a hole in the wall they made while waiting for the eviction notice.
	Those examples are unacceptable and must be stopped. In all cases, there were no recriminations against the squatters, who got no criminal record and no financial penalty, and no damages were paid to the homeowners. The squatters simply move out of one property and into the next with the knowledge that they can do so under existing law.
	I have discussed the issue with Sussex police, whose powers are limited even when the property is clearly being lived in. A police inspector in the city of Brighton and Hove tells me that in 18 years, no one has been prosecuted for any offence directly in relation to squatting. The squatters know that. Even where utilities are being used illegally or where there is forced entry, there are usually no witnesses, so arrest is often difficult.
	A local resident asked me in my local paper, The Argus:
	“If squatting is a practice that is socially unacceptable, how is leaving a property empty for more than a year any more acceptable?”
	My answer is simple: it is not acceptable at all. I have contacted my local council on a number of occasions about the issue of empty buildings belonging to exploitative developers, and I fully support the Government’s moves to use taxation as encouragement. However, we should be careful not to embrace squatting on the principle that our enemy’s enemy is a friend. We must get tough on bad landlords soon, but buildings can be temporarily empty for all sorts of reasons, many of which are entirely acceptable, as we have heard.
	The pro-squatting movement would have us believe three things, the first of which is that the existing powers are enough. They are not. In all situations, including even when a property is being lived in, a justice of the peace or commissioner of oaths must be involved before the police can remove the squatters, which adds to the delay. In that delay, the squatters are sleeping in people’s beds, watching their TV and eating their food.
	Secondly, pro-squatters would have us believe that squatters actually improve the properties they are in. I have thrown down the gauntlet to every squatting
	organisation in the country to show me one single squat where that is the case, and so far not one has been forthcoming. I am not surprised. Damage and destruction is the norm. Squatters do not run around with the hoover before they leave.
	Thirdly, pro-squatters would have us believe that if squatters were not squatting, they would be homeless and a burden on the state. Not only is that simply not true, but even if it were, squatting would not be the answer. Support and assistance from the state is to be encouraged for those who need it rather than living in often unfit and dangerous conditions.
	The new clause is a good piece of additional legislation that most people in the country will welcome. More could have been added, and I hope it will in due course. We might find that some of the exemptions should not be exemptions. I will be keeping a close eye on them to ensure that they do not turn into loopholes or simply displace targets for the professional squatters. However, I support this important legislation, and I am pleased to have played some part in progressing it to this stage.

John McDonnell: I want to follow on from the previous debate and the discussion of the method of making legislation. Making new laws, especially ones that can put people in prison for up to a year, is an extremely serious matter, so judgment cannot be undertaken or driven by anecdote, prejudice or media headlines.
	There are questions that have to be considered for wise judgment. What is the problem to be addressed? Is it real? What is the scale of the problem? Is there an existing law, and if so, is it defective in a way that renders it ineffective? If we are to make legislation of this sort, what are the consequences of creating a new crime for the people seeking a remedy in this way and for those who will be brought into the criminal justice system? What are the consequences and implications for the resources, operations and standing of the law enforcement agencies and our communities overall? Finally, during my years in the House, I have learned another key question: will it cause more problems than it seeks to cure?
	Is there a significant problem with squatting in residential properties? To be frank, the evidence produced by the Government so far has not demonstrated this. There have been some highly publicised cases in the media and statements by MPs and Ministers, but no hard evidence. The Government’s consultation paper acknowledged the lack of statistical evidence. For instance, the equality impact assessment states that
	“there is no consensus on the true extent of squatting, or the proportion of squatting that is in residential buildings.”
	Based on a number of assumptions—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) that many of them were supplied by squatters themselves or housing campaigning associations—the Government estimate that there might be between 200 and 2,100 criminal squatting cases in residential properties across England and Wales. That is a tenfold range, demonstrating the inexact nature of the Government’s evidence.
	In the response to the Government’s consultation, only seven victims of squatting in residential properties came forward. The lack of evidence has led the Law Society to object to changes in the law that are not
	evidence-based and the Magistrates Association to express its reluctance to see new laws created without proper analysis. This is the first time that I have been in alliance with the bench.
	Is the current law defective? Even if only a small number of people are affected, it is right that we sympathise with them and ensure that action is taken to protect them. If the law is defective or lacking, there should be a remedy, but most legal authorities that commented during the consultation felt that the existing law was sufficient. As has been said, under existing law, it is already a criminal offence for a squatter to refuse to leave someone’s home or a home that they are about to move into.

Mike Weatherley: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the squatters should not be there to start with?

John McDonnell: I shall move on to that; I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point.
	Under section 7 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, it is already an offence for any person on a residential premises not to leave
	on being required to do so by or on behalf of…a displaced residential occupier…or…protected intending occupier”.
	According to the response to the consultation, the Metropolitan police said that
	“the law was broadly in the right place and that the existing array of offences allowed them to tackle the worst cases of squatting (e.g. where squatters cause the rightful homeowner to be displaced).”
	The Law Society and the Criminal Bar Association confirmed the same view. The Law Society stated:
	“The consultation paper acknowledges that there are no reliable data on the nature and extent of squatting. In the absence of any such evidence, we have no reason to believe that the existing law does not deal adequately with squatting.”
	It went on to describe the operation of section 7 and confirmed that no evidence had been produced to demonstrate that it did not work adequately when properly used. Those concerns were confirmed by the Criminal Bar Association.
	The Law Society reported that section 7
	“is not often used, as squatting happens infrequently, but where it is our members”—
	that is, the lawyers concerned—
	“report that it is extremely effective.”
	These are the responses to the Government’s own consultation.
	Everyone in the House has to support evidence-based policy making. From all the evidence and information to hand, including from the Government’s own consultation and impact assessment, we must conclude that there is no evidence of a problem on any significant scale, that there is conjecture that it exists and that in the judgment of practitioners—not just the advocates, but the law enforcers—the existing law is sufficient.

Tracey Crouch: Does the hon. Gentleman not consider that one of the flaws with the current legislation is section 6 of the 1977 Act, which allows squatters to claim rights to a property, thereby making it difficult for owners to get rid of them?

John McDonnell: I cannot accept that when section 7 enables people to request squatters to leave. If they do not, they are committing a criminal offence, and the law should be enforced by the police under existing legislation.

Crispin Blunt: It is important to make it clear that section 7 does not apply to second home owners, landlords, vacant properties or probate properties, so even if applied satisfactorily, it is not the answer.

John McDonnell: The point made by most people in the consultation, including the police, is that if elements of section 7 need tidying up, there should be a proper discussion about that. However, to criminalise a entire group in society is to over-react to a problem that is relatively minor, although I do not wish to underestimate the problem that appears to be caused to some home or property owners.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend inform the House exactly when new clause 26 was published and how long people have had to comment on it, including those from the Law Society and elsewhere?

John McDonnell: I will come to that, because we need to learn lessons across the House about the appropriateness of how we have legislated in recent years. I have sat in this place and seen bad law produced as a result of rushing things—it happened under the last Government and it is happening under this one—and a lack of judgment about how much consideration each piece of legislation needs.

Kelvin Hopkins: Will my hon. Friend give way?

John McDonnell: I will, but I would like to press on, because others want to speak.

Kelvin Hopkins: Is there not a hint of short-term populism in what the Government are doing? Does my hon. Friend think that even the Government might come to regret it if they press their case?

John McDonnell: I went through 13 years of new Labour, so commenting on short-term populism might not be the most appropriate thing. I would not say: “A plague on all your houses!”, but let us all learn a few lessons.

Andrew George: Just so we are clear about the hon. Gentleman’s position, does he agree that it is unacceptable for anyone to be made homeless as a result of the kind of actions that we are talking about? Does he also agree, as a consequence, that passing new clause 26 in its current form would place an additional burden on the legal aid budget?

John McDonnell: I wholeheartedly agree.
	Let me press on, because others want to speak. Clearly there are a small number of cases, which we have already identified, that have caused genuine concern. The problem appears to be not with the existing law, but with its operation, as the consultation has made clear. Annington Holdings plc, a property holder of considerable size, said:
	“In Annington’s experience enforcement is the crux of the problem; our past experiences have shown that delays arise in removing squatters from properties due to limitations on police resources.”
	If the current problem is with police resources, the question—which has been raised by the High Court enforcement officers, the Criminal Bar Association and the Law Society—is whether the police would have the resources to enforce the law if a new offence is created, when they appear to be unable to enforce it against the existing offences. The Met has acknowledged that and is seeking to address it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and the Minister have said. The Metropolitan Police Service said in its statement that there was a lack of training and practical knowledge on the law on squatting, particularly section 7 of the 1977 Act, which may be a barrier to effective enforcement, and that it was conducting further training to address the issue.
	By criminalising squatting, the new clause certainly does not appear to be needed, but it will have consequences if introduced, some of them unintended. The new law will have consequences for those who will be brought into the criminal justice system for the first time, and it is worth repeating who those people are likely to be. The housing charity Crisis commissioned research into squatting from the centre for regional, economic and social research at Sheffield Hallam university, which was published only a month ago, in September. It found that, by and large, squatters were homeless people. The House of Commons Library note sets out for Members that
	“squatting is a common response to homelessness”,
	and that
	“most homeless people who squat try other avenues to resolve their housing problems before squatting”
	My hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said that 40% of single homeless people had squatted at some time. Furthermore, 6% of the homeless population are squatting tonight, 41% of homeless squatters report mental health needs, 34% have been in care, 42% have physical ill health or a disability, 47% have experienced drug dependency, 21% are self-harming, 15% have a learning disability, and 90% have slept rough. Those are the people whom this legislation is about to criminalise.
	The Crisis survey found that many of those people had no alternative, and that 78% had approached the local authority for help and been turned away. Among the housing charities—Crisis, Thames Reach, Shelter, Homeless Link, Housing Justice, St Mungo’s—there is a fear that the new legislation could criminalise extremely vulnerable people and force them into more dangerous situations, particularly rough sleeping.

Kate Hoey: I entirely support what my hon. Friend is saying. Does he agree that this will be particularly bad law because it is going to be retrospective? It will apply to people who are squatting at the moment, and who thought that they were doing so legally. The House should not be pushing through this legislation in this ridiculous way, without scrutiny.

John McDonnell: I believe that it will damage a large number people’s lives, some of whom are squatting at the moment for no other reason than that they are
	homeless. They will be criminalised by this retrospective legislation, which is something that I thought Members of all political parties across the House had rejected.
	What will be the effect of the new law on squatters’ lives? We know that many, although not all, vulnerable people live chaotic lives. They will be fined up to £5,000 or face up to a year in prison. Not many will have the resources to pay the fine, so prison will be a reality for a significant number of them. I have heard no estimate from the Government of the extent to which this will swell prison numbers. I fear that people will be drawn into a cycle of squatting and going to prison. One third of people coming out of prison have no home to go to, so they will get back into the squatting cycle.
	I hope that the House will not pass the new clause into law, but if it is determined to do so, I have tabled amendments to ameliorate its impact. Amendment (a) would provide that squatting remains a civil matter in all residential buildings that had been left empty long term and were not being brought back into use. This would ensure that residential buildings that had been lived in recently or that were being brought back into use would be covered by the criminal law. That includes the question of refurbishment that was raised earlier.
	I have looked at the statistics cycle over the past five years and found that, on average, between 650,000 and 700,000 residential properties stood empty during that time. Most are private properties, and 300,000 have been empty for more than six months. When there are 40,000 homeless families, 4,000 people sleeping rough in the capital, and 1.7 million households on waiting lists, desperate for decent accommodation, it is immoral that private owners should be allowed to let their properties stand empty for so long. My amendment could force those irresponsible owners to bring their properties back into use. More importantly, it would mean that desperate people who need a roof over their heads would not be criminalised for resorting to occupying a property that was being wasted by its owner.
	It is not for me to criticise the Speaker, of course, but I regret that my amendment (b) was not selected. I had hoped to try to persuade the House to protect the most vulnerable people in our society from being dragged into the courts, but I am sure that there were good reasons for not selecting it, and perhaps it will be debated in another place.
	My amendment (c) would address the fact that the present wording of the new clause criminalises those who are currently squatting in a residential building. It is one of the principles of good government that retrospective legislation is unjust. I should like to quote from article 11, subsection 2, of the universal declaration of human rights:
	“No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time it was committed.”
	There is a basic injustice about retrospective legislation, and I hope that the House will accept that and address it at some stage in this Bill’s consideration.
	Finally, there is a mounting housing crisis. I criticised the last Government as much as this one for their failure to address the supply of decent housing. We have got the return of appalling housing conditions in my constituency—overcrowding, high rents and the return of Rachmanite landlords. People are desperate
	and will resort at times to any means to put a decent roof over their and their family’s heads. Squatting is sometimes the only way. People should not be criminalised for wanting a decent home.
	The new clause is being rushed through Parliament. The Secretary of State launched in July a consultation on a range of proposals to criminalise squatting. The consultation ended in October. More than 2,000 responses were received, 90% of them opposed to the Government’s proposals. Clearly, there has been no serious consideration of the consultation responses because the clause was brought forward only three weeks after the consultation closed. This is rushed legislation, and rushed legislation, as I have said, is generally poor or bad legislation. The consultation, if it had been properly taken into account, made it clear that the current laws were sufficient to deal with any abuse. Professionals, police and others have told us so. My fear is that we now risk putting people on the streets and possibly into prison because our society has failed to provide them with a decent home. If this clause goes through tonight, I believe that many will regret it.
	I give notice that I wish to press amendment (a) to a vote.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: Order. As Members can see, a considerable number still wish to participate in the debate. As we want to listen to the Minister and the knife falls at 10 o’clock, I call for brevity and short speeches.

Mike Freer: I commend the Minister for listening to our concerns and introducing these proposals. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Hove (Mike Weatherley) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), as we have been pressing the Government for action for some time. I am grateful to the Minister for his courtesy on this issue.
	Labour Members commented that they did not see a need for this Bill, as they thought that there was some parallel Bill. I have to say, having listened to some Labour Members, that they seem to be living in a parallel universe. If there is not a squatting issue, why is it that three houses in my constituency were squatted in one week?
	My concern is about the residential squatters and the homes they squat, which are often not derelict or abandoned properties. Those properties can be dealt with. Councils such as my own London borough of Barnet routinely issue improvement notices. If landlords do not bring the properties up to standard or back into use, they use the threat of a compulsory purchase order to bring the landlords back into line. On every occasion I have seen that used, the property has been refurbished and brought back into use. There are methods of dealing with abandoned and derelict properties without giving a charter for squatters.
	The issue of residential squatters is not just one about mansions or large houses lying empty for year after year. The houses to which I refer in my constituency have been refurbished between purchase and occupation. These are houses that are going through probate or whose owners are on extended holidays. When the owners come home, they find their property occupied
	by somebody else, who is not necessarily homeless. As we have seen in the papers recently, it is often organised gangs that occupy family properties that are clearly occupied, clearly in use and clearly not abandoned.
	I listened to what Labour Members said about squatting already being a criminal offence and the police having powers to deal with it. If so, why is it on every occasion in my constituency that the police have stood by and said, “Sorry, guv, but it is nothing to do with us; it is a civil matter”? The current law is defective; the current law needs clarifying; and these proposals do that.
	I was intrigued to hear the argument that homelessness is some excuse for squatting. Is it okay for people to say, “I don’t have a house, so I’ll have yours. Thank you very much.”? I am not sure whether that is what Labour Members are genuinely saying.
	We heard the argument that pennilessness is an argument for squatting. Is it also an argument for mugging? If I am penniless and go out and mug somebody, is that all right? Is that what Labour Members are really saying?
	I have read the amendments, and I understand the problems of those who have been in shelters for the homeless or domestic violence refuges or have received mental health support. However, I also know that many people in need of mental health support squat not because they are not being given that support, but in order to evade the very support they need. If we can deal with squatting, those with mental health problems will have a better chance of benefiting from the intervention that they both need and deserve.
	Hard-pressed taxpayers and home owners who have worked hard, have bought their houses and pay their mortgages are demanding change and protection. I support the new clause because it will provide the very necessary protections that those people require.

Nigel Evans: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his brevity.

Jeremy Corbyn: Like other speakers, I shall be as brief as possible, because a good many Members clearly want to say something about this issue. I commend the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), the way in which he presented them, and the background information he provided.
	New clause 26 first saw the light of day only a few days ago. This is effectively a Second Reading debate, but it provides the only chance that the House will have to discuss a major change in legislation that will result in criminalisation. I predict that in years to come, Government and, indeed, Opposition Members will complain that a person has been criminalised because they were homeless—that a person who occupied someone else’s house was put in prison for a year, which would cost the rest of the community about £50,000.
	This country has a long and chequered history when it comes to squatting. It goes back to the Forcible Entry Act 1381, which became law during the Black Death. The issue has arisen time and again during periods of great stress: it arose at the end of the Napoleonic wars, at the end of the first world war and at the end of the second world war, when there was widespread squatting because of a terrible shortage of housing.
	The Criminal Law Act 1977, which I mentioned in an intervention earlier, was introduced after a great deal of consultation by the then Labour Government. There was a fair amount of opposition to the legislation, which distinguished specifically between the act of taking someone’s house when that person was occupying it and the act of occupying a property that was being kept empty. The property might be empty as a result of the inefficiency of a local authority or housing association—or, in some cases, a charitable landlord—but more often it would be kept empty deliberately while a property speculator waited for its value to rise before seeking to possess it and sell it to someone else; and, at the same time, a large number of people were homeless on our streets.
	Crisis and other charities have produced interesting statistics and arguments. It has been claimed that 40% of homeless people in the country have squatted at some point, and that because the housing crisis means that there will be more people on the housing waiting lists and more without access to houses, there is likely to be more squatting.
	Let me tell the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) that it is very easy to stand up in the House and say that no one should ever occupy any empty property, but it is another matter for someone who is homeless, has applied for local authority housing but is deemed not to be vulnerable as a single person, and is therefore not eligible to be nominated for a council or housing authority property. Those who try to rent a property in the private sector anywhere in London will find that renting a one-bedroom flat costs a minimum of £150 to £200 a week, renting a two-bedroom flat costs £250, and renting a house costs between £400 and £500. When the very same Government who are lecturing someone about occupying a property that has been deliberately left vacant are preventing that person from obtaining housing benefit to pay such rents, what can the person do? It is all very well for us to lecture, but what can that person actually do?
	I believe that the existing law can deal with most of the concerns that have been expressed. There are some cases in which people have behaved disgracefully and driven others out of their homes when they should not have done so, but the 1977 Act is designed to deal with such cases. They can be dealt with through selective, specific and well-thought-out legislation, rather than through the approach that is being adopted in the House this evening.
	We shall press amendment (a), tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, to a Division. It covers only residential property that “has been empty for six months or more”. Parliament has a responsibility to recognise that there are 700,000 empty properties across the country and a very large number of people who are either homeless and sleeping on the street, sofa-surfing before they run out of friends entirely, sleeping in cars, or just trying to get somebody to put them up for a night before they move on. I assume all Members have met such people in their advice surgeries. What do we say to them? Do we say, “It’s your problem; you go and solve it,” or are we a society that tries to help everyone and make sure everyone gets somewhere to live and has a secure roof over their head?
	I shall conclude by quoting from a letter from Sarah Evans. She was the Labour parliamentary candidate for North West Hampshire in 2010, but, unfortunately, she was not elected. Her letter is directed more to people in my party than to anybody else:
	“It beggars belief what sick logic can bring a government to condemn and criminalise some of the most vulnerable people in society for successive governments’ failures to build enough council homes—a policy which is forcing people to live on sofas and the streets.
	We have five million people in 1.8 million households on council waiting lists, there are many more ‘sofa-surfers’ who don’t even register on the homeless figures.
	We have a hyper-inflated housing market caused by the shortage of council homes.”
	In order to deal with this issue, we must invest in homes. We must invest in council properties, control rents and stop the obscene profits that the private rented sector is making as a result of the housing shortage. Then, we will begin to see a solution. Criminalising people is not a solution.

Tom Brake: Squatting clearly has a devastating impact on private owners, and it can also have a devastating impact on councils. When I was a councillor in Hackney back in the late ’80s, it was eventually discovered that many council properties were squatted, and that in many cases council employees had sold the keys to the squatters. We clearly need to tackle squatting, therefore. I would have welcomed a fuller debate on the matter, however, and I now want to raise a few points that would, perhaps, have been more pertinently raised in Committee, if that stage had taken place.
	The first aspect of new clause 26 on which I seek clarification is proposed new subsection (3)(b), which states that
	“a building is ‘residential’ if it is designed or adapted, before the time of entry, for use as a place to live.”
	Could a commercial building be so “designed” or “adapted”, and what would be required for that to be achieved? Would simply placing a bed in a commercial premises be enough for it to be “designed” or “adapted” as “a place to live”?
	The second point on which I seek clarification relates to proposed new subsection (4) on the “permission of a trespasser”. If a person has not been informed by someone who is a trespasser that they are in a building that they are squatting, and that person then squats in that property, would they be guilty of the offence of trespass? I hope the Minister can provide some clarity on that point.
	At the risk of the Opposition accusing me of trying to have my cake and eat it, I will say that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has raised some interesting points in amendment (a). Setting a bar of six months would not be appropriate, however, because there are many circumstances in which people might legitimately choose to leave a property empty—for example, if they are abroad for a year. However, I am sure that every Member of Parliament here tonight probably has one, two, three or possibly more properties in their constituency that have been empty year after year—possibly for decades. I know for a fact that residents living on either side of such properties may prefer to have someone in them so that the property
	is not allowed to fall down, be taken over by foxes, have trees growing in the front room and so on. I accept that the difficulty lies in trying to distinguish between those cases and cases where a squatter takes advantage of a property. The amendment raises an interesting point and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to it.

Nadine Dorries: Is the right hon. Gentleman truly saying that neighbours on either side of a property would prefer to have squatters in it than to have foxes in it or trees growing in it? Is that actually what he is saying?

Tom Brake: I think that the hon. Lady may, if she examines her constituency cases, find some examples where people are frustrated at the length of time—it could be years—that a property next to theirs has been empty and has been allowed to fall into disrepair, with all the environmental and other dangers associated with that.

Simon Hughes: I just want to try to disabuse the hon. Lady of a simplistic view about this. The council had determined to knock down a block over the other side of the river—the Pullens estate in my constituency, which is a fantastic old estate—but it was squatted, as were some estates in Surrey Docks. Had that not happened, these places would have been demolished. They were squatted, they were kept, they have been refurbished, and they are now properly let and in use. So this is not nearly as simplistic as it has been made out to be, and often people would rather a property was occupied than sitting empty.

Tom Brake: I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention, which provides its own explanation.
	The final point that I wish to make is about the retrospective nature of the provision as, again, it is an area that the Government need to examine carefully. As we have not had an in-depth debate here tonight, I suspect that it may well be a point that is examined much more closely when the matter is raised in the other place.

Kate Hoey: I, too, wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on the way in which he spoke, because this issue too often becomes one of exaggeration, where inaccurate things are said on both sides. He gave a very reasoned outline of why this coalition Government are rather silly in proposing this measure at this time and in this way. I, too, have been in this place a long time and I have seen legislation go through as a knee-jerk response to something that has happened. Very often people later regret very much that such legislation went through.
	It is quite wrong that something that has been introduced so recently, and where a substantial number of people in a consultation—90% of them—were opposed to it, is being put through in this way. As everyone else has said, this is, in reality, a Second Reading debate. No scrutiny will be provided in the House of Commons on the detail, so all these questions are being raised by different people about different aspects of it and we will not get a full answer. We are abrogating our duty and our
	responsibilities as Members of Parliament if we allow this measure to go through and hope that it will be dealt with in the other place. I am disappointed that Labour’s Front-Bench team is not taking a more robust view on this measure. There is always a danger for politicians in that regard, because they may worry about what the headline will say, but sometimes the headline is totally inaccurate and sometimes it has been devised because of the inaccuracies, the half-truths and the mistruths that have been put around over a period of time. Even at this stage, I hope that the Labour Front-Bench team will consider amendment (a) seriously.
	I believe that the retrospective nature of the measure is quite wrong. I also believe that there is squatting and squatting. The public see the difference in the kind of squatting that we have all condemned, whereby people take over someone’s house because they are away on holiday. However, there is already a law to prevent that from happening and those Members of Parliament who say that that has not been observed in their area should talk to the police because it means that the police are not enforcing the law.
	The kind of squatting that I support is the kind that the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) mentioned, when large blocks of flats and houses that have deliberately been emptied early by a local authority or a private developer sit empty for months or years waiting either for some work to be done or to be knocked down. I see absolutely no reason why people who have come to London as the capital city of their country to try to get work and to live but who have nowhere to live and no chance of getting a local authority flat or of affording a private sector property should not live in those empty properties. Most of those squatters would be perfectly willing to sign something saying that they will move out as soon as work is to start. Instead, we see such places being left empty for years.
	I am very sad indeed that we are seeing this knee-jerk response and that the Government are trying to introduce this measure so quickly. They will live to regret it and I hope that even tonight, at this late stage, Members who have come along thinking that there was no debate to be had and that this was a matter of, “Let’s just get this through”, will think very carefully and will at the very least support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington.

David Nuttall: I rise to support new clause 26 and I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Hove (Mike Weatherley) and for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) who, along with myself, have moved this matter up the agenda. I am grateful that the Minister has listened and that we now have some clarification over this area of law.
	I have practised as a solicitor and I can tell the House that, regardless of the 1977 Act, this area of law is completely unclear. It is unclear to the police, to lawyers and to home owners and it certainly is not working. Millions of home owners will be grateful that the new clause is, I hope, going to reach the statute book. There could be nothing worse for someone returning from a holiday than to find that their home has been occupied by squatters. Insult is then added to injury if they are told by their lawyer that they need to embark on a long and complicated civil law procedure, and a costly procedure at that.
	I note the point that has been made by Opposition Members about there being doubt about the exact numbers of properties that are occupied by squatters, but the fact remains that if a home owner returns to their property to find it occupied by squatters, it is 100% occupied by squatters and the overall statistics are, frankly, irrelevant.
	Let me make one further point about the amendment on which I understand we are to divide. It provides that an offence would not be committed
	“where the building has been empty for six months or more”.
	One point that has already been touched on is of real concern to many people. When a family member dies and leaves a property empty the personal representatives might have to wait many months—often longer than six months—before they can obtain a grant of letters of administration. There are many instances of properties being occupied by squatters in that time and, for that reason if no other, I hope that the House will reject the amendment. The new clause is a great step forward. It is often said that an Englishman’s home is his castle and I hope that this will help to reinforce that.

Caroline Lucas: I share the concerns that have been expressed by many Opposition Members about the Government’s proposals further to criminalise squatting. I want to highlight just a few of them. My first concern is the justification for the proposals. Squatting can have devastating impacts, and I want proper redress and protection for anyone who returns from a two-week holiday to find their house squatted, or for someone trying to sell their house who leaves it empty only to find squatters have moved in. But the law already stands to protect people in those instances. The major problem in dealing with cases of squatting is not the law itself but the enforcement of the law, including the time it can take for the courts to issue an interim protection order, for example.
	In theory, there is no reason why such an order cannot be issued far more swiftly. In practice, I accept that things can take far too long, often compounded by what appears to be a lack of understanding of the law by many police, who are the first port of call for home owners. That is unacceptable and it needs to be addressed, but those delays in implementing the law often result in cases being highlighted in the media, wrongly creating the impression that home owners are not protected in any way from squatting.
	The law clearly states when a criminal act has taken place. For example, section 7 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 makes it clear that squatters asked to leave by home occupiers are committing a criminal offence if they fail to do so.

Mike Weatherley: The hon. Lady is under a misapprehension. The person who comes back from holiday and finds their home squatted has no legal redress other than to ask the squatters to leave. The squatters are already in that property; they should not be there while the owners are on holiday.

Caroline Lucas: The legal redress is to ask them to leave. If the squatters refuse to leave, they are committing a criminal offence. That is the point.
	In September 160 housing lawyers wrote an open letter accusing Ministers and politicians of distorting public debate by making inaccurate statements about the law on squatting. I claim that that is exactly what is going on in the House tonight.
	Even the Metropolitan police and the Association of Chief Police Officers believe that the current squatting law is sufficient and that a new one would be a waste of police resources that could impact negatively on community relations. We need to see instead efforts increased to enforce the current law properly and swiftly, including better training for police officers.
	As many Opposition Members have said, many homeless people are pushed into squatting and do not do so out of choice. The appalling and often dangerous conditions in many squats are hardly attractive. Research by Crisis shows that 40% of single homeless people escape the horrors of rough sleeping by squatting, mostly in disused properties. These are the people who are most likely to be affected by the proposed new law, and who will be unnecessarily criminalised.
	Often homeless people will suffer from multiple diagnoses, with a combination of mental ill health, substance abuse and other problems. The challenge is to ensure that practical measures are put in place so that people with the most complex multiple needs can be supported more effectively and squatting avoided in the first place.

Joan Ruddock: In my surgeries now for the first time I am seeing people who are not in the categories that the hon. Lady has just described. I am seeing people in work who are losing their accommodation; they cannot keep going in the private sector on the wages that they earn. Those people are becoming homeless without any access to other provision, and some of them will turn to squatting, and I can well understand why.

Caroline Lucas: That is exactly the point I was about to come on to. In my surgeries in Brighton, Pavilion we are seeing levels of homelessness rising. People are coming to me in exactly the situation that the right hon. Lady describes. According to figures from the Department of Work and Pensions, 840 people in Brighton and Hove risk losing their homes as a result of the proposed changes to the shared accommodation rate of housing benefit, making this area of Brighton one of the worst affected in the whole country. So Government efforts must focus much more on tackling the root cause of the problem, not on penalising vulnerable homeless people, including those living in buildings that have been empty for long periods and are not about to be brought back into use.
	Part of the solution is investment in affordable housing and so, too, are measures to bring empty properties back into use as soon as possible. Brighton and Hove city council was named 2011 practitioner of the year by the Empty Homes Network for bringing 154 properties back into use over the past 12 months alone. The council’s amazing success is down to the hard work it has put into identifying empty private properties and its commitment to working with the owners of those properties where possible.
	Insufficient work is still being done about empty properties nationally. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), admitted in response to my oral question that only 46 empty home management orders had been issued in the full five years since they were brought in. That and other steps to tackle the lack of affordable housing in my constituency and elsewhere must be given far more priority than playing political football with the roofs over people’s heads.
	As many other Members have pointed out, the way the proposal has been brought to the House is completely unacceptable. To say that it was rushed is no exaggeration. This is not proper scrutiny; laws made in this way can only end in problems. The Government’s consultation on squatting closed only three weeks ago and I am sure I am not the only person who suspects that the 2,217 responses have not yet been fully analysed, especially as I understand that more than 96% of them expressed real concern about the impact of criminalising squatting. What is more, the option we are asked to consider today was not even included in the consultation.
	In conclusion, there is no denying that some high-profile cases raise serious concerns about the need to enforce better existing laws on squatting, but criminalising vulnerable homeless people is inhumane, undemocratic and, crucially, unnecessary.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I point out that I think the House would expect the Minister to have five minutes to respond to the debate.

David Ward: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the four minutes.
	A lot has been said. We have heard about parallel universes; indeed, we come here from different parts of the nation to offer different views. We have heard that the Englishman’s home is his castle. It is awful for people when their home is broken into; it feels desecrated and dirty. Where have the intruders been and what have they been up to? It is an awful feeling and we understand it, but when I heard some of the comments from Government Members I thought about my perspective—my universe.
	When we talk about squatters, people think in terms of their own home, but that is a far cry from my experience of squatters. I am talking about people in places where there is no electricity, gas or water. There is no toilet and in some cases there is not even a roof. The properties are cold, damp, dark and very dangerous, with rats, stench and disease. They are also very violent places.
	What about the squatters? We are not talking about hippy communes, with bean bags, beer and loud music, or about scroungers who ought to pull their socks up and get a job or go back home. We are talking about people without friends or families, and possibly without futures. In my experience, no one squats if an alternative is available.
	That may not be the experience of other people, but it is mine. Debate on the provisions on legal aid and social welfare was shamefully evaded last night, but so many people in squats have suffered as a result of the failure of our system. In many cases, the state has put them
	into that position, whether the health service or the council; 78% of squatters have been turned away by their local authority. The failure may relate to employment support, or people may have just been downright unlucky.
	Where on earth is the value in adding a criminal record to the problems those people face? The proposals are irresponsible. They are costly. At a time when we are being asked to do so many things that are unpleasant and unpopular, but possibly necessary for the deficit reduction plan, these proposals would simply add to the costs that we will all have to face, if not in our communities then in Armley prison. It does not make sense. The proposals do not add up.
	The two universes could be brought together through amendment (a), which is a compromise that would improve the enforcement of existing legislation, with the back-up of the six-months provision. I shall support it.

Crispin Blunt: It is pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward), with the undoubted candour that he brought to his remarks. However, I profoundly disagree with him. It is a basic premise that if one takes someone else’s home, one has stolen from them one of the most important things for any of us. I am afraid we are going to part company on that principle, and as he will have heard in my opening remarks, the issue of homelessness has to be addressed in that strategy.
	I thank the official Opposition for their support, presented with his usual enthusiasm by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter). There was a moment when the charming side of the hon. Gentleman almost escaped—his rather touching revelation about his aptitude for politics when assessed by an external examiner at A-level. For that at least, I am grateful. However, to challenge us about talking business out, when he made a three-hour speech on the first group in Committee, would have come better from someone else.
	The hon. Gentleman made an accusation that there was no clarity. There is absolute clarity in what we are doing. To try and escape into the issue of when a bothy is not a bothy, which will not be entirely clear to hikers, was the refuge of the desperate. When people are hiking they are clear where bothies are, and if they are not, they should not be undertaking the hike.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the benefits of the measure and the impact assessment. The impact assessment is clear. It has to identify benefits and potential risks. The benefits section of the impact assessment makes it clear that there could be significant benefits for residential property owners in the form of reduced legal costs in particular. Perhaps that puts into context the lobby by the legal profession. The impact assessment also suggests that if the offence acts as a deterrent, the instances of squatting may decrease.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) for his excellent speech and the impressive campaign that he has waged on the issue. He made the point that we owe a duty to the homeless, a view shared by all on the Government Benches. His pertinent challenge to find any case where squatters have improved a property by virtue of their occupation was extremely telling.
	In my opening remarks I tried to answer the terms of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who asked us not to
	legislate on the basis of anecdote or prejudice. I say to him and to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) that the issue is hardly a surprise. It has been around for a very long time. The Prime Minister announced the consultation back in June. We have consulted for 12 weeks, and what we have tabled is a limited proposal. Those on the Opposition Front Bench feel able to support it because it is limited to residential properties.
	As I said, we will keep the other areas under review, particularly commercial property. We recognise that that will be more controversial. That is why the proposals are limited to subjects on which we believe there is widespread agreement. In the words of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, those on the Front Bench support criminalisation as it represents arrogant behaviour on the part of squatters, who think they can just take someone else’s property.
	The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said that only seven victims of squatting responded to the consultation, but a number of local authorities responded and a number of law firms responded on behalf of several of their clients who had been victims of squatting. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) made the same point and I am delighted to find myself in absolute agreement with him. Four landlords associations representing a very large membership responded to the consultation and they all shared a desire to strengthen the law.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) made a powerful case. He made the basic point that what we are addressing here is something that is fundamentally wrong. It is wrong to steal someone else’s home and that is what the new clause will address—
	Debate interrupted (Programme Order, 31 October).
	The Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.
	Question agreed to.
	Clause  accordingly read a Second time.
	The Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).
	Amendment proposed to new clause 26: (a), line 7, insert—
	‘(2A) The offence is not committed where the building has been empty for six months or more and where there are no significant steps being taken to refurbish, let or sell the building at the time of the trespass.’.—(John McDonnell.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 23, Noes 300.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 283, Noes 13.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	New clause 26  added to the Bil l .
	Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mr Newmark.)
	Bill to be further considered tomorrow.

Business without Debate

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, on Tuesday 15 November and on Tuesday 20 December, the House shall meet at 11.30 am and references to specific times in the Standing Orders of this House shall apply on each day as if that day were a Wednesday.—(Mr Newmark.)

Mr Speaker: Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), I appeal to Members leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly, affording the same courtesy to her that they would wish to be extended to them in similar circumstances.

WORLD VEGAN DAY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Newmark.)

Kerry McCarthy: I start by expressing my sympathy for the Minister tonight. It can never be much fun doing the late night Adjournment debate, and I am fairly sure that this is not an issue dear to his heart.
	This is the first time that world vegan day has been marked in Parliament. The chefs have also done a sterling job, with vegan dishes in the main restaurants on the parliamentary estate every day this week. Earlier today, the Vegan Society event was swamped by MPs and staff lured there by the promise of free vegan cupcakes. The cakes came courtesy of the award-winning Ms Cupcake, who has just won contracts to supply her cakes to the Olympics and Paralympics, not because her cakes are vegan but because they are delicious.
	As a vegan of nearly 20 years’ standing, I am very fortunate to represent a seat in Bristol, because it not only plays host to the largest vegan fayre in Europe each year but has some great restaurants and shops catering for vegans, such as Cafe Kino, Cafe Maitreya, Wild Oats, Better Foods and the Sweetmart. I am pleased to be joined tonight by my vegan comrades, my hon. Friends the Members for Derby North (Chris Williamson) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson). We are apparently the largest vegan caucus in the world.
	In response to a survey by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in 2007 on public behaviour and attitudes towards the environment, about 2% of respondents said that they were vegan. The number of converts is growing. The former fast-food lover Bill Clinton has adopted a vegan diet for health reasons, saying that previously he had been playing Russian roulette with his health, and last week both Ozzy Osbourne—the man who used to bite the heads off bats—and Russell Brand announced that they had decided to become vegan after watching the film “Forks Over Knives”. Other celebrity vegans include Joaquin Phoenix, Alicia Silverstone, Ellen DeGeneres, Carl Lewis, Woody Harrelson, Bryan Adams, Chrissie Hynde, Alanis Morissette, Benjamin Zephaniah and even Mike Tyson—so when people say to me, “You don’t look like a vegan”, I am not quite sure what they mean.
	A vegan diet means not eating meat, fish, dairy, eggs or products derived from them. Ethical vegans also avoid wearing leather, wool and silk, and buying or using products that are tested on animals or contain animal products. I think that it is a personal choice how far people want to take it, and some vegans are much stricter than others, which is fine.
	Among the many prejudices against vegans is the belief that they are always preaching to others and trying to convert them. I do not think that is true; we are incredibly tolerant. We are always polite when others ask, “Don’t you ever get tempted by a bacon sandwich?”—as the Whip did to me only a moment ago—and we always pretend that we have never heard anyone tell the “Spock from Star Trek vegan/Vulcan” joke before, even though we hear it practically every day. In fact, most vegans I know are rather coy about explaining why they are vegan, mostly because the question tends to be asked when we are sitting a dinner
	table full of meat eaters, and it seems rather impolite to answer. However, seeing as we are not at a dinner party now, here is the ethical case, the health case and the environmental case for being vegan.
	If people are vegetarians for ethical reasons—because they believe that killing and eating animals is wrong—they really ought to be vegan, too. The average human eats more than 11,000 animals in his or her lifetime, but millions of calves and chicks are also killed every year as “waste products” of milk and egg production. I confess that, for me, it took a long time for the penny to drop that cows are not constant milk-producing machines. Just like every other animal, including human females, cows produce milk only to nurse their young. The dairy industry means artificially forcing loads more milk out of cows—10 to 20 times more than they need to feed their calves, with their huge udders causing painful mastitis and lameness—and taking their calves away early, or, in the case of male dairy calves, which are useless to the dairy industry, either shooting them at birth or exporting them live to the rest of the EU for the veal trade. The average lifespan of a dairy cow is six years, compared with a natural lifespan of 20 to 25 years. Some 100,000 male calves a year are deemed a surplus by-product on Britain’s dairy farms because they cannot give birth or produce milk. An undercover investigation by the Bristol-based vegetarian campaign Viva! showed a calf taken from its mother and shot in the head at Halewood Gate dairy farm near Bristol, which supplies milk for Cadbury—something that was reported in The Sun of all places.
	Hens are forced to lay 20 times as many eggs as is natural for them. Male chicks are useless to the egg industry. Millions of day-old chicks are killed, with many thrown alive into mincers—known as “homogenisers”. This also happens in free-range and organic systems, despite their claims to be cruelty-free. I have previously raised with the Minister my concern that, having made progress in areas such as banning battery cages, this country is now moving to embrace industrial-scale intensive farming, with the Nocton dairy mega-farm, housing thousands of cows in something that resembles a multi-storey car park, and the huge pig farm planned in Foston, Derbyshire, with more than 20,000 pigs and piglets. I know the Minister’s views on that well, so I will touch on it only in passing.

Chris Williamson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the case for eating less meat or becoming vegan is reinforced by the fact that major companies are buying up vast tracts of land in developing nations to grow grain for animals, displacing subsistence farmers from their land? When 2 billion people on this planet are going hungry every night, would it not be better to use the food that we produce more efficiently by feeding it directly to human beings, rather than to animals, which is an inefficient way of using land?

Kerry McCarthy: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and I will come to the environmental and food security case for being vegan in a moment.

Simon Hart: Can the hon. Lady point to any peer-reviewed science to support her allegation about the UK livestock industry, rather than giving us the
	mantra of the animal rights or vegan movement? If she can do that, her argument might carry a bit more weight.

Kerry McCarthy: I am about to cite some scientific research on the health case, and I also have some very authoritative sources for the environmental case. The ethical case is about people’s personal opinions on whether it is ethical to treat animals in such a way or to eat them. It is not science-led; it is led by people’s morals.

Simon Hart: So is the hon. Lady saying that the assertions she has made about agricultural practices are a personal opinion, as opposed to there being any evidence to support them?

Kerry McCarthy: I am not quite sure which practices the hon. Gentleman is referring to. If he is talking about the average lifespan of a dairy cow, that is something that I have researched and it is in the public domain. I know that DEFRA is looking to get the average lifespan of a dairy cow up to eight years, but six years was the average cited in the research that I looked at, while the figure for cows suffering from mastitis is 33%. I could go on—although I do not have the footnotes before me—but it is all in the public domain and well researched.
	It can be quite difficult to nail down the facts and figures on the health benefits of a vegan diet, particularly when organisations such as meat marketing boards and milk marketing boards spend millions on counter-promotions. As I have mentioned, the recently released film “Forks Over Knives” puts the case that switching to a wholefoods-based vegan diet can prevent and even reverse serious illnesses. The film gives an overview of the 20-year China-Cornell-Oxford project, which found that a number of diseases, including coronary disease, diabetes and cancer, can be linked to the western diet of processed and animal-based foods. It is certainly true that the traditionally very low rates of breast cancer among Japanese women are increasing as they adopt western diets with a higher consumption of animal fats. In Japan, affluent women who eat meat daily have an 8.5 times higher risk of breast cancer than poorer women who rarely or never eat meat.

Jim Shannon: How would the hon. Lady respond to the statement by my GP and many others that we need a balanced diet, and that a balanced diet should include meat?

Kerry McCarthy: I will come to that in a moment. The World Cancer Research Fund carried out an authoritative study which found that people should avoid processed meat altogether, and eat red meat in moderate amounts only. That is the most authoritative study that I have come across. Cancer Research UK is co-funding a massive study called EPIC—the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition—which has found that people who ate two daily 80-gram portions of red or processed meat increased their risk of developing bowel cancer by a third, compared with those who ate just 20 grams a day. The same study found that people eating more than 100 grams of meat a day had over three times the risk of getting stomach cancer.
	As I mentioned, the World Cancer Research Fund reviewed 263 research papers and concluded in May this year that there was convincing evidence that red and processed meat increased the risk of bowel cancer. When those findings emerged, the National Beef Association and the National Sheep Association, in conjunction with the National Farmers Union, issued statements accusing the fund of misleading the public. The fund retaliated by accusing the British meat industry of potentially defamatory and deliberately misleading statements, and repeated its message that it was best to avoid processed meat and to eat red meat only in moderation. It stated:
	“The fact is that our report is the most comprehensive and authoritative review of the evidence that has ever been published and it found convincing evidence that red and processed meat both increase the risk of bowel cancer”.
	As I have mentioned, there has been a significant rise in the number of people who are becoming vegan—[ Interruption. ]

Cathy Jamieson: Just before my hon. Friend moves off her point about balanced diets, will she tell us—perhaps for the benefit of those on the Conservative Benches who seem to be heckling about what is or is not a case for veganism—whether she agrees that it is entirely possible to have a healthy, balanced diet without eating any animal products whatever?

Kerry McCarthy: That is true. As I said, I have been a vegan for nearly 20 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun has been one for 15 years, and my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North has been one since time immemorial—well, since the 1970s, anyway. I think that we are all testament to the fact that people can survive perfectly well on a vegan diet—[ Interruption. ] My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun referred to the heckling. It is strange to have heckling in an Adjournment debate, and I think it is perhaps testament to the strength of our argument that people feel they have to mock what we are saying rather than joining in the debate.
	I deal now with the environmental case for switching to a vegan diet. The 2006 report by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, “Livestock’s Long Shadow”, stated that the livestock industry was responsible for 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions. That is more than the transport sector, including aviation, which produces 13.5%, yet there is a huge public debate about aviation and virtually no debate about livestock. I secured a debate on this issue in Westminster Hall in 2009, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) subsequently made a valiant attempt to put the Sustainable Livestock Bill through the House, only for it to be blocked by the Government. I hope that the Minister will have time tonight to update the House on the progress of some of the promises that he made when he responded to a speech by my hon. Friend almost a year ago today.
	Meat consumption is an incredibly inefficient way to feed the planet. It takes 8 kg of grain to produce 1 kg of beef. It takes 100 times as much water to produce 1 kg of beef as it does to grow 1 kg of vegetables. It takes almost 120 calories of fossil fuel energy to produce 1 calorie of beef, compared with 2.2 calories to produce
	a single calorie of plant protein. It takes almost 21 square metres of land to produce 1 kg of beef, compared with 0.3 square metres to produce 1 kg of vegetables.
	We hear a lot about biofuels and deforestation, but whereas in 2009 about 100 million tonnes of crops were being diverted to create biofuels, around 760 million tonnes were being used to feed animals. As Raj Patel wrote in his excellent book “Stuffed and Starved”:
	“The amount of grains fed to US livestock would be enough to feed 840 million people on a plant-based diet. The number of food-insecure people in the world in 2006 was, incidentally, 854 million”.
	I am conscious that I have not mentioned fish at all during this debate. I would refer the House to the extremely powerful documentary “The End of the Line”, and also to the series “Fish Fight” by Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, which highlights some of the issues to do with the sustainability of our fish stocks and the impact of over-fishing on our marine environment.
	I conclude with some questions for the Minister. It was disappointing that at the climate change talks in Copenhagen, the environmental impact of the livestock sector was given little prominence. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that this issue has a higher priority on the agenda at Rio next year? Will it also be on the agenda at the climate change talks in Durban next month?
	What discussions has the Minister had, or will he commit to having, on these issues with our EU counterparts, particularly in the context of reform of the common agricultural policy? According to Compassion in World Farming, at least 80% of the EU’s animals are factory farmed. What vision does the Minister have for the future of farming across the EU in terms of animal welfare standards, environmental impact and sustainability?
	In respect of development policy and global food security, what consideration has been given to the health and environmental factors I have mentioned in terms of feeding the world’s growing population? Is this something that is ever discussed between DEFRA and the Department for International Development? What assessment have the Government made of the health benefits of a diet low in meat and dairy consumption? What guidance is given in the public sector—in schools, hospitals and prisons, for example—on the availability of vegan food with a view to meeting the needs of those who have chosen a vegan diet, and with a view to the health benefits?
	What further progress can be made on food labelling so that vegans know whether the products they purchase are ethical or not? Can the Minister also confirm that when the EU directive on animal experimentation is transposed into UK law, it will not mean a lowering of standards? And finally, there is concern that the proposed network of marine protected areas to be established under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 next year will not adequately protect wildlife and that some of our most important marine wildlife sites could even be missed off altogether. Can the Minister provide reassurance on this point and perhaps tell us more about what he or his Department is doing to tackle over-fishing?
	I appreciate that I have at times strayed somewhat outside the Minister’s brief, but I hope he can give clarity on at least some of the issues I have raised. I thank him for his patience in listening to me.

James Paice: May I genuinely congratulate the hon. Lady on taking the opportunity to raise the issue of vegans on world vegan day and to elaborate on her thoughts and the views that she and her colleagues hold? She rightly identified at the outset that she and I will not agree on some of these issues, but I respect the intensity of her views, which she and I have exchanged several times over the Dispatch Box.
	May I say, however, that I do not think hon. Lady helps her cause by some of the quite wide exaggerations she made in her speech? To talk about an intensive dairy farmer as being akin to a multi-storey car park is, frankly, ludicrous. There is no suggestion—

Kerry McCarthy: They are piled on top of one another.

James Paice: The hon. Lady is saying something from a sedentary position—I will need to get this on the record, Mr Speaker—about cows on top of each other. There is no such question. The proposal at Nocton, which is now dead as a proposal anyway, did not involve a multi-storey facility. It does not do the cause any good to exaggerate like that.
	I hope I can answer some of her questions. As she said, some of them have strayed a little from my brief. I think many of the answers are in the Foresight report, which was the Government’s chief scientific adviser published in January this year. That is all about the future of food and farming. It looks not just at the UK, but at the global demand and supply for food over the next 30 or 40 years up to 2050. We are having this debate on the day after the 7 billionth person was born on this planet; it is quite right to think about the security of our food supply across the globe.
	There is no doubt that, as the Foresight report made clear, the current food system is consuming the world’s natural resources at an unsustainable rate. I agree with the hon. Lady about that. At this rate we will continue to degrade our environment, compromise the world’s capacity to produce food in the future, and contribute to climate change and further destruction of our biodiversity.
	The status quo is not an option, which is why we in DEFRA have put the importance of sustainable food and farming at the forefront of what we are doing. It is the first priority of our business plan. It underpins everything. We are looking at the food chain in its entirety, with the aim of helping to secure an environmentally sustainable and healthy supply of food and creating the conditions for the agri-food sector to succeed. The Foresight report—this is relevant to one of the hon. Lady’s questions—highlighted the significance of dietary changes to the sustainability of our food supply, given that, as the hon. Lady rightly said, some foods require more resources for their production than others. We all need to play our part.
	The most important people in all this are consumers. As the hon. Lady suggested, they can best be helped to make the choices that they want to make when they are receiving consistent messages about what constitutes a sustainable balanced diet, and, indeed, what the products that they are purchasing contain. By providing a robust evidence base, we can work closely with a wide range of partners to try to ensure that they are given that information.
	The issue of diet is complex. Across the world, cultural, social and religious factors influence the make-up of what we eat. The Government do not believe that we should undermine those influences. We see value in encouraging people to think carefully about the environmental impact of the food that they eat. Groups such as the Vegan Society provide information for consumers and help to increase their knowledge. However, we also need to recognise that a vegan diet is not for everyone.
	I must tell the hon. Lady that I was a bit confused about whether she was advocating veganism, was concerned about animal welfare, or was simply recommending a balanced diet involving a lower proportion of processed meat—with which recommendation, incidentally, I would entirely agree. We know that there are recommendations suggesting that people should not eat too much processed meat. However, that is a long stretch from the more extreme position of a vegan, which, as the hon. Lady said, means eating absolutely no products of animal origin. There is a great difference between the two positions. The Government recommend a balanced diet. We are not going to tell people what or what not to eat; we want people to be given information that will enable them to make informed choices.
	The hon. Lady raised the issue of food labelling. As she knows, we are committed to improving it: that has been one of our prominent policies both in opposition and in government. As she also knows, there is currently no definition in law of the term “vegan”, and labelling products as vegan is entirely voluntary. However, if such labelling is used, consumers are protected by the law, because it is illegal to mislead them through false or misleading labelling. A new European Union regulation on the provision of food information to consumers will be published in the next few months, and will then enter into force in all member states. It covers the rules for general food and nutrition labelling, and requires the European Commission to draft a set of measures governing use of the terms “vegetarian” and “vegan”. I hope that that reassures that the hon. Lady that the issue is being, and will continue to be, addressed.
	The Government’s promotion of advice on a balanced diet applies to vegetarians and vegans as well as to those who eat much more livestock products. A well-planned diet based on anything can be healthy as long as it contains the right balance of foods. The main issue that we face is, of course, obesity, which is a leading cause of serious diseases such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease and cancer. It also costs the national health service £5 billion a year. The Government’s recently published document “Healthy lives, healthy people: a call to action on obesity in England” sets out how obesity will be tackled in the new public health and NHS systems, and the role that partners can play. Obesity is a serious problem, and it is the responsibility of individuals to change their behaviour to benefit their health. Most of us are eating or drinking more than we need to, and we are not active enough. Being overweight or obese is a consequence of eating more calories than we need.

Chris Williamson: The Minister says that diet and avoiding obesity are the responsibility of individuals. Does he not accept that companies such as McDonald’s
	ruthlessly and specifically target young children in order to force on them a diet that is wholly unhealthy and contributes considerably to the obesity crisis that the nation is currently experiencing?

James Paice: No, I do not accept that. The hon. Member for Bristol East reeled off a list of vegan organisations, businesses and retailers in Bristol. They all have a right to advertise their wares as long as they are selling something that is lawful. I do not believe that it is for Government to tell them they should not do so.
	What matters is that we encourage people to reduce the amount of calories they consume, in whatever form. As part of the Government’s ongoing Change4Life campaign, we are encouraging people to make the key simple changes: eat more fruit and vegetables; cut down on fatty foods, particularly unsaturated fats; reduce calorie consumption; and, of course, be more active.

Kerry McCarthy: This section of the Minister’s speech sounds like filler to avoid talking about the issues I have raised. He said that it is important that people get the right balance in their diet. What do the Government regard as the right balance for eating red meat and processed meats in a diet?

James Paice: I cannot tell the hon. Lady that precisely. Such matters are the responsibilities of the Health Education Authority and the Department of Health. As she rightly said in her earlier comments, they are not part of my remit. There is a wealth of information, however, about balanced diets and recommended proportions and amounts, and 70 grams a day of meat is established as being a good figure.
	The hon. Lady does me a disservice by suggesting I was not going to answer her questions, as I will do so. However, the points I am making now are important, and they are relevant to the question of balanced diets.
	Returning to the Foresight report, which I mentioned earlier, it is clear that we need to achieve a sustainable food supply and to use the whole range of measures available to us. The hon. Lady made a point about the consumption of grain to produce meat. I have to say to her that two thirds of the world’s farming area is grass, and the only way to turn grass into food is to feed it through livestock. If we were to remove all that livestock from the system, the world would be a lot shorter of food. That is a simple fact, so what else is the hon. Lady going to do? She looks askance, but she should understand that large parts of the world will not grow grain as the terrain or climate is wrong, or the soil is too thin. Therefore, grass is the only option if that land is to produce food.
	The hon. Lady also referred to the figure of 8 kg to produce 1 kg of beef. On the face of it, that is correct, but only if all the cattle are fed is grain. However, as I have just implied, a large proportion of the beef—and the sheepmeat—in this world is produced from grass. Many of the livestock never see a grain of cereal in their diet. That is the reality. Yes, there are beef feedlots in America where the cattle are fed only on grain, and in that context the figures the hon. Lady cites are right. However, to use them as if they apply to the whole industry across the world is entirely misleading. In fact,
	the bigger consumers of grain are pigs and poultry because they eat nothing else. They can be fed only on grain and soya bean.
	On the subject of soya, the hon. Lady talked about the increasing desecration of the rain forest to produce arable crops, but the main such crop is soya bean, which is what most people who do not eat meat eat. How can one have a haggis made of soya? [Interruption.] As my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) points out, it is possible to find vegetarian haggis. However, the point is that soya is the staple diet of people who do not eat meat.

Several hon. Members: rose —

James Paice: No, I am not going to give way, as I do not have much time left.
	I go back to my starting point of the Foresight report. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has signed up to a five-point action plan to take it forward, and that is very important. I shall now deal with the hon. Lady’s questions, and she will appreciate that I have had them for only a few minutes, although we did speak briefly before the debate. She asked about the climate change talks in Copenhagen and, to the best of my knowledge, the issue she mentioned is not on the agenda at the moment. She asked about our European counterparts and the common agricultural policy, and the answer is that we have not discussed veganism. I am not sure precisely what she wants us to talk to them about, but it is very early days in the reform of the CAP. At the moment, there is no unanimity on the Commission’s proposals for CAP reform.
	The hon. Lady alleges that 80% of the European Union’s animals are factory farmed. I suppose that that depends on the definition of “factory farming”, but I find it difficult to believe. I have spoken about development policy and global food security; that is all covered in the Foresight report. She asked about the assessment we have made of the health benefits of a diet low in meat and dairy consumption, and, again, I have addressed the point. It is a matter of balance. It is not a question of doing without those things; it is question of keeping the intake to a sensible level. The figures are available from the various Government bodies. I have addressed the issue of food labelling; it is going to be resolved.
	As for the hon. Lady’s question about the EU directive on animal experimentation, I am afraid that I do not know the answer. It is a matter for the Home Office and I cannot answer that. On the establishment of the proposed network of marine protected areas, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), is working very hard on this, along with Natural England. To the best of my knowledge, they will be making sure that wildlife is protected. But that is a long way from the implication that we should not be eating fish, which I thought was her approach.
	I hope that I have answered the hon. Lady’s main principles. As I said at the outset, we are not going to agree entirely on this issue, but she has raised it and the House has heard what she has to say.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.